Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Breast, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Name

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 15.3?
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 No 19.9 (19.4, 20.4) N/A 1,392 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
United States N/A No 19.3 (19.2, 19.4) N/A 42,308 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
Yancey County Rural No 22.4 (12.3, 38.8) 24 (1, 82) 3
*
*
Yadkin County Urban No 15.3 (9.6, 23.9) 79 (12, 82) 5 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.4, -0.2)
Wilson County Rural No 22.1 (16.8, 28.7) 28 (5, 79) 13 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.8, -0.1)
Wilkes County Rural No 19.0 (13.7, 25.8) 54 (6, 82) 10 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.0, 0.0)
Wayne County Urban No 24.8 (19.9, 30.7) 13 (3, 66) 19 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Watauga County Rural Yes 15.2 (9.5, 23.4) 80 (10, 82) 5 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.7, 1.4)
Warren County Rural No 22.2 (12.7, 38.0) 27 (1, 82) 4
*
*
Wake County Urban No 16.5 (15.1, 18.0) 74 (49, 79) 102 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.2)
Vance County Rural No 38.9 (29.1, 51.1) 3 (1, 27) 12 rising rising trend 5.4 (1.9, 16.5)
Union County Urban No 17.6 (14.6, 21.2) 66 (22, 81) 24 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.4)
Transylvania County Rural No 18.5 (12.2, 28.2) 58 (5, 82) 7 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.2, -0.6)
Surry County Rural No 17.7 (13.1, 23.7) 65 (10, 82) 11 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.1, 0.1)
Stokes County Urban Yes 12.3 (7.9, 19.0) 82 (33, 82) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.7)
Stanly County Rural No 15.7 (10.8, 22.4) 78 (14, 82) 7 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.4, -0.4)
Scotland County Rural No 23.5 (15.5, 34.7) 20 (2, 82) 6 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 0.8)
Sampson County Rural No 24.2 (17.8, 32.3) 17 (2, 77) 10 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -0.2)
Rutherford County Rural No 21.2 (15.6, 28.4) 33 (4, 81) 11 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.7)
Rowan County Urban No 21.2 (17.3, 25.7) 34 (8, 74) 22 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.4)
Rockingham County Urban No 19.8 (15.3, 25.3) 44 (8, 80) 15 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.9)
Robeson County Rural No 25.0 (20.0, 30.8) 12 (3, 64) 19 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Richmond County Rural No 24.6 (16.9, 34.9) 14 (2, 81) 7 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.2, -1.1)
Randolph County Urban No 20.9 (17.1, 25.5) 36 (7, 76) 22 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Polk County Rural No 21.8 (12.2, 37.9) 29 (1, 82) 5
*
*
Pitt County Urban No 23.8 (19.5, 28.7) 19 (4, 64) 23 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.1)
Person County Urban No 20.1 (13.7, 29.0) 42 (4, 82) 7 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -0.8)
Pender County Urban No 22.4 (16.4, 30.2) 25 (3, 80) 10 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.7, 0.7)
Pasquotank County Rural No 17.4 (11.2, 26.3) 68 (6, 82) 5 falling falling trend -27.4 (-49.6, -2.2)
Orange County Urban No 18.2 (14.4, 22.8) 62 (16, 81) 16 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.3, -0.9)
Onslow County Urban No 24.2 (19.6, 29.6) 16 (4, 67) 20 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.8)
New Hanover County Urban No 20.5 (17.4, 24.0) 39 (12, 73) 34 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.7)
Nash County Urban No 28.0 (22.5, 34.5) 5 (2, 45) 20 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.8)
Moore County Urban No 21.2 (16.6, 26.8) 35 (6, 79) 18 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.7, -0.8)
Mitchell County Rural No 39.4 (23.7, 63.0) 2 (1, 73) 5
*
*
Mecklenburg County Urban No 18.9 (17.3, 20.5) 55 (31, 71) 112 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -0.4)
McDowell County Rural No 22.7 (16.1, 31.7) 21 (2, 81) 8 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.8, 1.5)
Martin County Rural No 18.3 (10.5, 31.0) 59 (3, 82) 4 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.6, 0.7)
Madison County Urban No 21.3 (11.7, 36.4) 32 (1, 82) 3
*
*
Macon County Rural No 17.1 (10.9, 26.3) 70 (6, 82) 6 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.2, -0.2)
Lincoln County Urban Yes 14.3 (10.5, 19.3) 81 (34, 82) 10 stable stable trend -2.0 (-3.7, 0.1)
Lenoir County Rural No 18.7 (13.1, 26.0) 57 (7, 82) 8 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.5, -0.9)
Lee County Rural No 24.3 (18.0, 32.4) 15 (2, 78) 10
*
*
Jones County Rural No 39.9 (21.3, 71.1) 1 (1, 81) 3
*
*
Johnston County Urban No 17.0 (13.9, 20.5) 71 (25, 81) 22 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.0, -0.8)
Jackson County Rural No 17.5 (11.1, 26.8) 67 (5, 82) 5
*
*
Iredell County Urban No 19.4 (16.0, 23.3) 49 (14, 78) 25 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Hoke County Urban No 20.2 (13.0, 29.9) 41 (3, 82) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.8)
Henderson County Urban No 19.4 (15.7, 24.0) 48 (12, 79) 22 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.1, 8.8)
Haywood County Rural No 16.9 (12.0, 23.6) 72 (11, 82) 9 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.9, -0.9)
Harnett County Rural No 20.6 (16.2, 25.9) 38 (6, 79) 15 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.7)
Halifax County Rural No 26.6 (19.1, 36.4) 8 (1, 77) 10 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.3)
Guilford County Urban No 21.6 (19.4, 23.9) 30 (13, 59) 74 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Granville County Rural No 19.2 (13.5, 26.7) 52 (5, 82) 8 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.5, -1.0)
Gaston County Urban No 16.7 (13.9, 20.0) 73 (31, 81) 26 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.0, -1.5)
Franklin County Urban No 21.4 (15.6, 28.7) 31 (4, 81) 10 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.7, 0.1)
Forsyth County Urban No 22.6 (20.0, 25.4) 23 (9, 55) 59 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.6)
Edgecombe County Urban No 26.2 (19.0, 35.5) 9 (1, 75) 10 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.4)
Durham County Urban No 19.6 (16.8, 22.8) 46 (15, 76) 36 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.1)
Duplin County Rural No 23.9 (16.6, 33.5) 18 (2, 81) 8 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.0, -1.2)
Davie County Urban No 15.8 (10.5, 23.4) 76 (11, 82) 6
*
*
Davidson County Urban No 19.5 (16.0, 23.6) 47 (13, 79) 24 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
Dare County Rural No 20.8 (14.0, 30.5) 37 (3, 82) 6
*
*
Currituck County Urban No 18.7 (10.5, 31.1) 56 (3, 82) 3
*
*
Cumberland County Urban No 25.5 (22.3, 29.1) 11 (4, 43) 46 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Craven County Rural No 19.2 (14.7, 24.8) 51 (8, 81) 14 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.3)
Columbus County Rural No 25.6 (18.7, 34.5) 10 (2, 76) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.6)
Cleveland County Rural No 19.1 (14.7, 24.6) 53 (8, 81) 14 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.8, -1.0)
Cherokee County Rural No 15.7 (10.1, 25.2) 77 (9, 82) 5 falling falling trend -31.2 (-53.3, -2.5)
Chatham County Urban No 16.0 (11.9, 21.5) 75 (21, 82) 11 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.4, -1.2)
Catawba County Urban No 19.3 (15.7, 23.5) 50 (12, 78) 22 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.7)
Carteret County Rural No 18.2 (13.5, 24.5) 60 (9, 82) 11 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.0, -1.7)
Caldwell County Urban No 19.8 (14.9, 26.1) 43 (7, 81) 12 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Cabarrus County Urban No 18.2 (15.1, 21.9) 61 (18, 80) 24 falling falling trend -11.7 (-21.6, -1.0)
Burke County Urban No 22.6 (17.5, 28.9) 22 (4, 77) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.2)
Buncombe County Urban No 18.1 (15.5, 21.1) 63 (24, 78) 38 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.2, -1.6)
Brunswick County Urban No 17.8 (14.5, 21.9) 64 (21, 80) 25 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.3)
Bladen County Rural No 26.9 (18.3, 39.0) 7 (1, 78) 7 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.1, 0.1)
Beaufort County Rural No 19.6 (13.9, 27.5) 45 (5, 82) 8 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.3, -0.2)
Avery County Rural No 26.9 (15.0, 46.3) 6 (1, 82) 4
*
*
Ashe County Rural No 20.2 (11.7, 33.3) 40 (2, 82) 4
*
*
Anson County Urban No 34.3 (22.8, 50.6) 4 (1, 67) 6 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.6, 1.3)
Alexander County Urban No 17.2 (10.8, 26.7) 69 (6, 82) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.8, 1.0)
Alamance County Urban No 22.2 (18.4, 26.7) 26 (5, 72) 26 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.3)
Alleghany County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bertie County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Caswell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chowan County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hertford County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Montgomery County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Northampton 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 11/06/2024 10:08 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.

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