Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Pancreas, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Rate

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate descending
CI*Rank ⋔
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by CI rank descending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
North Carolina N/A *** 11.4 (11.2, 11.7) N/A 1,517 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.2, 2.4)
United States N/A *** 11.2 (11.1, 11.2) N/A 46,760 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.2, 0.3)
Jackson County Rural *** 7.0 (4.3, 11.1) 85 (28, 85) 4 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.9, 2.4)
Watauga County Rural *** 7.1 (4.5, 11.1) 84 (29, 85) 4
*
*
Polk County Rural *** 7.7 (4.3, 14.1) 83 (11, 85) 3 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.5, 1.8)
Bladen County Rural *** 8.0 (4.9, 12.8) 82 (13, 85) 4 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.1, 1.6)
Duplin County Rural *** 8.6 (5.8, 12.4) 81 (18, 85) 6 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.0, 2.0)
Currituck County Urban *** 9.0 (5.2, 14.9) 80 (4, 85) 4
*
*
Northampton County Rural *** 9.0 (5.2, 15.9) 79 (5, 85) 3 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.5, 3.1)
Orange County Urban *** 9.0 (7.1, 11.4) 78 (28, 85) 15 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.2)
Transylvania County Rural *** 9.0 (6.0, 13.8) 77 (8, 85) 7 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.4, 2.9)
Beaufort County Rural *** 10.1 (7.1, 14.3) 76 (7, 85) 8 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.8, 1.6)
Ashe County Rural *** 10.1 (6.6, 15.6) 75 (4, 85) 5
*
*
Gaston County Urban *** 10.2 (8.6, 12.0) 74 (23, 82) 30 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.5)
Nash County Urban *** 10.2 (7.8, 13.1) 73 (12, 84) 14 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.8)
Catawba County Urban *** 10.3 (8.4, 12.4) 72 (19, 82) 23 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 1.3)
Hertford County Rural *** 10.3 (5.9, 17.2) 71 (2, 85) 3 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.1, 0.3)
Hoke County Urban *** 10.4 (6.3, 15.9) 70 (2, 85) 4 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.3, 1.5)
Burke County Urban *** 10.4 (8.0, 13.3) 69 (11, 84) 14 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.1, 1.8)
Cabarrus County Urban *** 10.4 (8.6, 12.5) 68 (19, 82) 24 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.5)
Wake County Urban *** 10.5 (9.6, 11.4) 67 (37, 78) 115 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.3)
Granville County Rural *** 10.5 (7.5, 14.4) 66 (5, 85) 8 stable stable trend 18.4 (-1.7, 38.3)
Rutherford County Rural *** 10.5 (7.9, 13.9) 65 (8, 85) 11 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.1, 1.5)
Mecklenburg County Urban *** 10.5 (9.6, 11.5) 64 (32, 77) 108 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.3)
Chatham County Urban *** 10.6 (8.3, 13.4) 63 (12, 83) 15 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.5)
Brunswick County Urban *** 10.6 (8.9, 12.7) 62 (16, 82) 32 stable stable trend 1.1 (0.0, 2.9)
Greene County Rural *** 10.7 (6.1, 18.1) 61 (1, 85) 3
*
*
Carteret County Rural *** 10.8 (8.4, 13.9) 60 (8, 84) 14 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.1, 2.8)
Iredell County Urban *** 10.8 (9.0, 12.9) 59 (14, 81) 25 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.3)
Dare County Rural *** 10.8 (7.2, 16.0) 58 (2, 85) 6
*
*
Union County Urban *** 10.9 (9.1, 13.0) 57 (15, 81) 27 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 1.3)
Macon County Rural *** 11.1 (7.8, 15.7) 56 (4, 85) 8 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.8)
Franklin County Urban *** 11.1 (8.1, 14.9) 55 (5, 84) 10 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.7, 2.4)
Wilson County Rural *** 11.1 (8.5, 14.4) 54 (5, 83) 13 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 1.0)
Guilford County Urban *** 11.3 (10.2, 12.5) 53 (22, 74) 73 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.7)
Stokes County Urban *** 11.3 (7.9, 15.9) 52 (2, 85) 8 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.9, 1.8)
Pasquotank County Rural *** 11.3 (7.5, 16.5) 51 (2, 85) 6 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.2, 0.4)
Davidson County Urban *** 11.4 (9.5, 13.5) 50 (12, 79) 28 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.1, 1.8)
New Hanover County Urban *** 11.4 (9.7, 13.2) 49 (13, 78) 35 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 1.3)
Randolph County Urban *** 11.5 (9.5, 13.8) 48 (8, 80) 23 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 1.1)
Forsyth County Urban *** 11.5 (10.1, 13.0) 47 (16, 74) 55 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 1.0)
Bertie County Rural *** 11.5 (6.5, 19.6) 46 (1, 85) 3 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.2, 1.2)
Durham County Urban *** 11.5 (9.9, 13.3) 45 (12, 77) 39 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 1.1)
Lincoln County Urban *** 11.6 (8.9, 14.9) 44 (4, 82) 13 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 1.9)
Wilkes County Rural *** 11.6 (8.8, 15.0) 43 (5, 83) 12 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.5)
Cumberland County Urban *** 11.7 (10.1, 13.5) 42 (11, 77) 38 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 1.0)
Craven County Rural *** 11.7 (9.3, 14.6) 41 (6, 81) 17 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.6)
Johnston County Urban *** 11.8 (9.8, 14.1) 40 (9, 79) 27 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.2, 1.8)
Cleveland County Rural *** 11.9 (9.5, 14.8) 39 (5, 80) 17 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.4, 2.2)
Yadkin County Urban *** 11.9 (8.1, 17.1) 38 (2, 85) 7 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.7, 3.3)
Buncombe County Urban *** 12.0 (10.5, 13.6) 37 (12, 72) 49 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.6, 1.2)
Alamance County Urban *** 12.0 (10.0, 14.2) 36 (7, 78) 27 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.1, 2.2)
Vance County Rural *** 12.0 (8.3, 16.9) 35 (2, 84) 7 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.7, 1.9)
Sampson County Rural *** 12.3 (9.1, 16.4) 34 (2, 83) 10 stable stable trend 1.2 (0.0, 2.8)
Davie County Urban *** 12.3 (8.8, 17.1) 33 (1, 83) 8
*
*
Surry County Rural *** 12.5 (9.7, 15.9) 32 (3, 80) 14 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.1, 2.8)
Montgomery County Rural *** 12.5 (8.1, 18.8) 31 (1, 85) 5
*
*
Lee County Rural *** 12.5 (9.2, 16.6) 30 (2, 84) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 1.2)
Pender County Urban *** 12.6 (9.4, 16.7) 29 (2, 82) 11 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.3, 3.1)
McDowell County Rural *** 12.6 (9.0, 17.4) 28 (1, 83) 9
*
*
Martin County Rural *** 12.6 (7.8, 19.9) 27 (1, 85) 5
*
*
Rockingham County Urban *** 12.7 (10.2, 15.8) 26 (3, 78) 18 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.2)
Rowan County Urban *** 12.7 (10.6, 15.3) 25 (5, 75) 25 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.3, 2.0)
Haywood County Rural *** 12.8 (10.0, 16.3) 24 (3, 79) 15 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.2, 2.5)
Onslow County Urban *** 12.8 (10.3, 15.6) 23 (3, 77) 20 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.3, 2.2)
Anson County Urban *** 12.9 (7.9, 20.3) 22 (1, 85) 4
*
*
Lenoir County Rural *** 13.0 (9.8, 17.1) 21 (1, 81) 11 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.1, 1.7)
Caldwell County Urban *** 13.1 (10.3, 16.4) 20 (2, 77) 16 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.7, 1.5)
Cherokee County Rural *** 13.2 (8.7, 19.6) 19 (1, 84) 7
*
*
Moore County Urban *** 13.2 (10.8, 16.0) 18 (3, 75) 23 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.2, 1.6)
Scotland County Rural *** 13.2 (8.9, 19.0) 17 (1, 84) 6
*
*
Chowan County Rural *** 13.3 (7.3, 23.4) 16 (1, 85) 3
*
*
Wayne County Urban *** 13.5 (10.9, 16.5) 15 (2, 75) 20 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.4)
Henderson County Urban *** 13.5 (11.3, 16.0) 14 (3, 66) 29 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.2, 2.3)
Yancey County Rural *** 13.5 (8.6, 21.2) 13 (1, 85) 5
*
*
Pitt County Urban *** 13.7 (11.3, 16.4) 12 (2, 67) 24 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 1.1)
Person County Urban *** 13.9 (10.0, 19.0) 11 (1, 81) 9 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.4, 3.0)
Alexander County Urban *** 13.9 (9.8, 19.5) 10 (1, 82) 8
*
*
Warren County Rural *** 14.0 (9.1, 21.6) 9 (1, 84) 5
*
*
Stanly County Rural *** 14.1 (10.8, 18.3) 8 (1, 77) 12 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.2, 3.4)
Edgecombe County Urban *** 14.8 (10.9, 19.8) 7 (1, 78) 10 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.8)
Harnett County Rural *** 14.9 (12.1, 18.1) 6 (1, 62) 21 stable stable trend 1.2 (0.0, 3.0)
Richmond County Rural *** 15.2 (10.9, 20.7) 5 (1, 79) 9 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.2, 3.6)
Robeson County Rural *** 16.1 (13.2, 19.5) 4 (1, 48) 22 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.4, 3.0)
Halifax County Rural *** 17.9 (13.8, 23.0) 3 (1, 50) 14 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.2, 2.8)
Columbus County Rural *** 18.2 (14.1, 23.4) 2 (1, 39) 14 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.2, 2.7)
Caswell County Rural *** 18.9 (12.9, 27.3) 1 (1, 70) 7
*
*
Alleghany County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perquimans County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/05/2024 4:38 pm.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
Trend
Rising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.
Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.
Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.

† Death data provided by the National Vital Statistics System public use data file. Death rates calculated by the National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat. Death rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). The Healthy People 2030 goals are based on rates adjusted using different methods but the differences should be minimal. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI.
The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.
‡ The Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) is based on the APCs calculated by Joinpoint. Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.

⋔ Results presented with the CI*Rank statistics help show the usefulness of ranks. For example, ranks for relatively rare diseases or less populated areas may be essentially meaningless because of their large variability, but ranks for more common diseases in densely populated regions can be very useful. More information about methodology can be found on the CI*Rank website.

*** No Healthy People 2030 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).

Please note that the data comes from different sources. Due to different years of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each graph for additional information.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

Return to Top