Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Lung & Bronchus, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Count

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 25.1?
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 ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
North Carolina N/A No 37.7 (37.2, 38.1) N/A 5,062 falling falling trend -4.2 (-5.1, -3.6)
United States N/A No 32.4 (32.3, 32.5) N/A 136,831 falling falling trend -4.3 (-4.4, -4.1)
Wake County Urban No 25.8 (24.4, 27.3) 98 (90, 100) 276 falling falling trend -4.5 (-5.3, -3.9)
Mecklenburg County Urban No 26.5 (25.1, 28.0) 97 (89, 99) 272 falling falling trend -5.3 (-6.3, -4.5)
Guilford County Urban No 35.9 (33.8, 38.0) 76 (56, 86) 231 falling falling trend -3.5 (-8.1, -2.1)
Forsyth County Urban No 38.0 (35.6, 40.6) 66 (45, 82) 181 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.5, -2.4)
Cumberland County Urban No 43.7 (40.5, 47.0) 37 (17, 65) 144 falling falling trend -2.3 (-5.6, -2.0)
Gaston County Urban No 47.7 (44.2, 51.4) 23 (7, 51) 142 falling falling trend -4.6 (-9.8, -1.8)
Buncombe County Urban No 30.4 (28.0, 33.0) 91 (76, 96) 124 falling falling trend -8.4 (-14.5, -4.9)
Davidson County Urban No 49.8 (45.8, 54.0) 13 (3, 44) 121 falling falling trend -5.2 (-12.8, -1.2)
Brunswick County Urban No 37.8 (34.5, 41.5) 69 (39, 85) 113 falling falling trend -4.4 (-9.6, -2.3)
Johnston County Urban No 46.9 (42.9, 51.1) 26 (7, 58) 109 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.3)
Randolph County Urban No 50.8 (46.4, 55.5) 11 (2, 42) 103 falling falling trend -9.4 (-17.1, -1.1)
Alamance County Urban No 45.6 (41.7, 49.8) 28 (9, 63) 103 falling falling trend -1.8 (-5.7, -1.3)
New Hanover County Urban No 32.4 (29.6, 35.4) 86 (67, 94) 102 falling falling trend -8.1 (-17.2, -3.0)
Durham County Urban No 26.7 (24.3, 29.4) 96 (87, 100) 91 falling falling trend -5.5 (-7.0, -4.5)
Iredell County Urban No 37.3 (33.9, 41.0) 71 (39, 87) 90 falling falling trend -4.5 (-8.4, -3.0)
Onslow County Urban No 55.8 (50.6, 61.4) 5 (1, 26) 87 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.6)
Catawba County Urban No 37.9 (34.3, 41.8) 67 (37, 87) 85 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.7, -2.6)
Rowan County Urban No 42.0 (38.0, 46.4) 52 (19, 79) 84 falling falling trend -6.0 (-10.3, -3.7)
Union County Urban No 32.0 (28.9, 35.4) 88 (68, 95) 80 falling falling trend -4.0 (-7.2, -2.7)
Cabarrus County Urban No 33.1 (29.9, 36.6) 85 (62, 94) 79 falling falling trend -4.0 (-5.0, -3.1)
Robeson County Rural No 52.7 (47.4, 58.4) 9 (1, 40) 76 falling falling trend -0.9 (-5.1, -0.3)
Wayne County Urban No 48.1 (43.2, 53.4) 20 (3, 60) 73 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Rockingham County Urban No 49.7 (44.6, 55.3) 14 (2, 51) 72 falling falling trend -2.0 (-4.4, -1.3)
Henderson County Urban No 32.1 (28.8, 35.8) 87 (64, 96) 71 falling falling trend -3.4 (-8.4, -2.1)
Craven County Rural No 47.0 (42.0, 52.4) 24 (4, 64) 69 falling falling trend -2.3 (-9.2, -1.0)
Harnett County Rural No 46.7 (41.8, 52.1) 27 (4, 68) 67 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -0.8)
Pitt County Urban No 35.9 (32.1, 40.1) 75 (43, 92) 67 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.6)
Caldwell County Urban No 49.3 (43.8, 55.3) 16 (2, 57) 61 stable stable trend 2.2 (-5.2, 10.3)
Surry County Rural No 54.4 (48.4, 61.1) 7 (1, 35) 61 falling falling trend -9.4 (-17.8, -0.4)
Cleveland County Rural No 42.4 (37.7, 47.7) 48 (14, 79) 60 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.9, -2.2)
Burke County Urban No 41.6 (37.0, 46.8) 55 (15, 81) 60 falling falling trend -4.9 (-8.6, -3.0)
Nash County Urban No 40.4 (35.7, 45.7) 59 (19, 84) 55 falling falling trend -11.2 (-17.9, -4.6)
Moore County Urban No 31.4 (27.6, 35.6) 89 (64, 98) 54 falling falling trend -3.7 (-7.2, -2.4)
Carteret County Rural No 42.5 (37.4, 48.4) 46 (12, 82) 54 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.0)
Lincoln County Urban No 39.9 (35.0, 45.4) 62 (19, 86) 50 falling falling trend -3.0 (-12.7, -1.4)
Wilkes County Rural No 43.8 (38.4, 50.0) 36 (8, 78) 48 falling falling trend -4.8 (-14.3, -1.3)
Wilson County Rural No 42.6 (37.3, 48.6) 44 (10, 80) 47 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
Haywood County Rural No 39.9 (34.8, 45.7) 63 (19, 87) 46 falling falling trend -2.7 (-7.8, -1.5)
Rutherford County Rural No 42.8 (37.2, 49.0) 42 (8, 81) 45 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Sampson County Rural No 55.2 (48.1, 63.2) 6 (1, 44) 45 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Stanly County Rural No 44.4 (38.3, 51.2) 32 (5, 82) 40 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Orange County Urban Yes 24.3 (21.0, 28.1) 99 (88, 100) 39 falling falling trend -4.1 (-6.8, -3.1)
Halifax County Rural No 50.0 (43.0, 58.0) 12 (1, 65) 39 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.4)
Lenoir County Rural No 44.2 (38.0, 51.3) 33 (5, 80) 38 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Columbus County Rural No 48.4 (41.6, 56.1) 18 (1, 69) 38 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.7)
Franklin County Urban No 40.5 (34.8, 47.1) 58 (12, 89) 37 falling falling trend -10.4 (-20.6, -2.5)
Pender County Urban No 42.1 (36.1, 49.0) 51 (10, 84) 37 falling falling trend -6.5 (-14.8, -1.5)
Edgecombe County Urban No 47.8 (40.9, 55.7) 21 (1, 72) 36 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
McDowell County Rural No 51.1 (43.8, 59.4) 10 (1, 58) 36 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Richmond County Rural No 59.4 (50.8, 69.1) 1 (1, 33) 36 stable stable trend 4.0 (-1.7, 14.1)
Beaufort County Rural No 42.0 (35.7, 49.3) 54 (8, 86) 33 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.2, -2.0)
Davie County Urban No 49.0 (41.7, 57.4) 17 (1, 72) 33 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.9, 1.1)
Granville County Rural No 39.7 (33.7, 46.5) 64 (14, 90) 33 falling falling trend -3.9 (-8.2, -2.2)
Stokes County Urban No 43.5 (37.0, 51.1) 38 (7, 84) 33 falling falling trend -3.0 (-13.6, -1.7)
Chatham County Urban Yes 22.2 (18.9, 26.2) 100 (91, 100) 32 falling falling trend -6.6 (-15.8, -3.4)
Lee County Rural No 37.3 (31.5, 43.8) 72 (19, 94) 31 falling falling trend -4.0 (-13.6, -2.0)
Duplin County Rural No 42.4 (35.9, 50.0) 49 (5, 85) 31 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.7)
Yadkin County Urban No 49.6 (41.8, 58.7) 15 (1, 70) 29 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.4)
Vance County Rural No 47.8 (40.1, 56.7) 22 (1, 74) 29 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.7)
Person County Urban No 42.6 (35.5, 51.0) 43 (6, 89) 27 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -0.3)
Macon County Rural No 34.6 (28.7, 41.6) 81 (32, 98) 26 falling falling trend -5.0 (-14.5, -2.0)
Scotland County Rural No 56.2 (46.7, 67.1) 4 (1, 55) 26 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.9)
Cherokee County Rural No 39.3 (32.5, 47.7) 65 (10, 93) 25 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.2, -0.8)
Alexander County Urban No 43.1 (35.7, 51.8) 39 (4, 89) 24 falling falling trend -3.4 (-10.8, -1.5)
Bladen County Rural No 45.1 (37.1, 54.6) 29 (2, 85) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Pasquotank County Rural No 42.5 (35.0, 51.2) 47 (4, 91) 24 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Transylvania County Rural No 30.7 (25.1, 37.6) 90 (50, 100) 23 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.9, -1.0)
Dare County Rural No 36.6 (29.8, 44.9) 73 (16, 97) 22 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.6, -1.6)
Jackson County Rural No 33.8 (27.5, 41.3) 84 (32, 99) 21 falling falling trend -20.5 (-33.9, -2.8)
Ashe County Rural No 35.8 (29.0, 44.4) 77 (17, 98) 20 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.3)
Hoke County Urban No 43.0 (34.5, 52.9) 40 (3, 92) 19 falling falling trend -4.9 (-16.5, -2.1)
Caswell County Rural No 48.2 (38.7, 59.9) 19 (1, 84) 19 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Martin County Rural No 44.1 (35.1, 55.3) 34 (2, 92) 17 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.2, -1.1)
Watauga County Rural No 27.0 (21.4, 33.8) 95 (67, 100) 17 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -0.8)
Currituck County Urban No 42.0 (32.9, 53.1) 53 (3, 95) 16 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.4, -1.1)
Hertford County Rural No 46.9 (36.9, 59.2) 25 (1, 87) 16 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.5, -1.1)
Yancey County Rural No 44.0 (34.5, 56.0) 35 (1, 91) 15 stable stable trend -1.6 (-13.6, 0.4)
Northampton County Rural No 44.6 (34.1, 58.0) 31 (1, 93) 15 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.2)
Madison County Urban No 42.6 (33.1, 54.4) 45 (2, 94) 15 falling falling trend -3.6 (-15.5, -1.0)
Montgomery County Rural No 34.3 (26.6, 43.9) 82 (18, 100) 14 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.9, -1.2)
Anson County Urban No 40.3 (30.9, 52.0) 60 (3, 98) 13 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Polk County Rural No 29.6 (22.3, 39.5) 93 (32, 100) 13 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.2, -0.9)
Warren County Rural No 35.8 (27.5, 46.6) 78 (13, 100) 13 falling falling trend -7.9 (-13.2, -4.2)
Bertie County Rural No 40.9 (30.9, 53.9) 57 (2, 98) 12 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.0, -0.9)
Mitchell County Rural No 41.2 (31.1, 54.5) 56 (2, 98) 12 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.3)
Swain County Rural No 53.1 (39.7, 70.2) 8 (1, 86) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 1.2)
Greene County Rural No 40.1 (29.8, 53.2) 61 (2, 99) 10 falling falling trend -4.5 (-17.4, -1.6)
Perquimans County Rural No 37.5 (27.9, 50.9) 70 (5, 99) 10 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.5, -0.8)
Pamlico County Rural No 36.6 (26.2, 51.4) 74 (4, 100) 9 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.5, -1.0)
Chowan County Rural No 34.2 (25.0, 47.0) 83 (13, 100) 9 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.2)
Alleghany County Rural No 37.9 (27.2, 53.1) 68 (2, 100) 9 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.1)
Clay County Rural No 30.3 (21.4, 43.9) 92 (27, 100) 8 falling falling trend -5.8 (-25.7, -2.2)
Graham County Rural No 56.9 (40.5, 79.5) 3 (1, 90) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.4, 0.7)
Avery County Rural No 27.2 (19.3, 38.2) 94 (45, 100) 8 falling falling trend -6.7 (-20.3, -3.5)
Gates County Urban No 44.9 (31.3, 63.7) 30 (1, 99) 7 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.6, 0.8)
Washington County Rural No 35.6 (24.8, 50.9) 79 (3, 100) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.7, 0.3)
Jones County Rural No 42.3 (28.7, 61.7) 50 (1, 100) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.5, 0.9)
Camden County Urban No 35.5 (22.2, 54.3) 80 (2, 100) 5 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.8, -0.7)
Tyrrell County Rural No 57.4 (33.9, 96.3) 2 (1, 100) 4 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.2, 1.9)
Hyde County Rural No 43.0 (24.8, 73.3) 41 (1, 100) 3
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/08/2024 11:13 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.

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