Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Prostate, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 16.9?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate ascending
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 No 19.7 (19.1, 20.2) N/A 993 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.6)
United States No 18.8 (18.7, 18.9) N/A 31,337 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
Hertford County No 31.6 (19.5, 48.9) 1 (1, 75) 4 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.0, -1.5)
Edgecombe County No 29.0 (20.5, 39.9) 2 (1, 67) 8 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.4, -1.2)
Halifax County No 28.9 (21.0, 39.1) 3 (1, 62) 9 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.7, -1.3)
Pasquotank County No 28.7 (19.2, 41.4) 4 (1, 72) 6 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.6, -0.4)
Chowan County No 28.5 (16.2, 49.0) 5 (1, 79) 3
*
*
Yancey County No 28.4 (16.9, 46.1) 6 (1, 77) 4
*
*
Martin County No 28.2 (17.6, 44.0) 7 (1, 77) 5 falling falling trend -4.8 (-6.9, -2.7)
Granville County No 27.8 (19.7, 38.2) 8 (1, 65) 8 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.1, -1.7)
Hoke County No 27.2 (16.0, 42.4) 9 (1, 78) 4 falling falling trend -5.8 (-7.9, -3.6)
Caswell County No 26.8 (16.1, 42.8) 10 (1, 79) 4 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.9, -0.7)
Robeson County No 25.9 (20.1, 32.9) 11 (1, 57) 15 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.0, -2.0)
Bladen County No 25.8 (16.6, 38.6) 12 (1, 76) 5 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.2, -2.5)
Wayne County No 25.1 (19.6, 31.6) 13 (1, 59) 15 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.6, -2.4)
Macon County No 24.9 (17.3, 35.5) 14 (1, 75) 7
*
*
Montgomery County No 24.7 (15.4, 38.3) 15 (1, 78) 5
*
*
Sampson County No 24.1 (17.0, 33.2) 16 (1, 74) 8 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.2, -1.5)
Harnett County No 23.8 (17.9, 30.8) 17 (1, 69) 12 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.4, -2.1)
Warren County No 22.8 (13.4, 37.9) 18 (1, 79) 4
*
*
Durham County No 22.7 (18.9, 26.9) 19 (5, 59) 27 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.2, -2.5)
Vance County No 22.6 (14.4, 33.7) 20 (1, 78) 5 falling falling trend -4.5 (-6.1, -2.9)
Davidson County No 22.6 (18.3, 27.6) 21 (4, 64) 20 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.6, -1.3)
Nash County No 22.4 (16.7, 29.4) 22 (2, 73) 11 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.0, -2.4)
Onslow County No 22.2 (16.8, 28.6) 23 (3, 73) 12 falling falling trend -4.2 (-5.7, -2.6)
Dare County No 22.0 (14.1, 33.1) 24 (1, 79) 5 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.5, 0.4)
Chatham County No 22.0 (16.9, 28.5) 25 (3, 72) 13 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.3, -1.7)
Orange County No 21.9 (16.7, 28.2) 26 (3, 73) 13 falling falling trend -4.1 (-5.3, -2.8)
Pender County No 21.8 (14.9, 30.7) 27 (1, 77) 7 falling falling trend -4.2 (-6.0, -2.3)
Forsyth County No 21.7 (18.7, 25.0) 28 (8, 57) 40 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.5, -1.9)
Iredell County No 21.6 (17.2, 26.7) 29 (4, 69) 18 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.3, -1.3)
Rowan County No 21.6 (17.1, 27.0) 30 (5, 70) 16 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.7, -2.4)
Catawba County No 21.6 (17.2, 26.7) 31 (5, 68) 18 stable stable trend 2.1 (-3.0, 7.5)
Johnston County No 21.5 (16.8, 26.9) 32 (4, 71) 17 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.3, -2.1)
Union County No 21.4 (17.0, 26.5) 33 (5, 68) 18 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.6, 1.8)
Mecklenburg County No 21.4 (19.2, 23.7) 34 (12, 53) 76 falling falling trend -3.3 (-3.8, -2.8)
Rutherford County No 20.7 (14.8, 28.5) 35 (3, 77) 8 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.7, -1.2)
Northampton County No 20.5 (11.6, 35.3) 36 (1, 79) 3
*
*
Guilford County No 20.3 (17.9, 23.1) 37 (13, 60) 50 falling falling trend -3.3 (-3.9, -2.7)
New Hanover County No 20.3 (16.8, 24.3) 38 (10, 67) 25 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.0, -2.2)
Wake County No 19.8 (17.8, 22.0) 39 (18, 60) 72 falling falling trend -3.4 (-3.9, -2.9)
Yadkin County No 19.6 (12.1, 30.4) 40 (2, 79) 4
*
*
Cumberland County No 19.5 (16.0, 23.5) 41 (11, 71) 23 falling falling trend -3.8 (-4.7, -2.9)
Haywood County No 19.5 (14.1, 26.7) 42 (5, 77) 9 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.2)
Richmond County No 18.9 (11.9, 28.8) 43 (2, 79) 5 falling falling trend -4.0 (-5.8, -2.2)
Wilkes County No 18.9 (13.6, 25.9) 44 (6, 78) 8 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.1, -0.8)
Brunswick County No 18.8 (15.2, 23.3) 45 (11, 75) 21 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.5, -2.5)
Alamance County No 18.6 (14.8, 23.2) 46 (12, 75) 16 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.3, -2.4)
Person County No 18.3 (11.1, 28.6) 47 (3, 79) 4 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.8, -0.3)
Burke County No 18.2 (13.5, 24.2) 48 (9, 78) 10 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.9, -0.9)
Davie County No 18.1 (11.8, 26.9) 49 (5, 79) 5 falling falling trend -4.0 (-5.7, -2.2)
Wilson County No 17.9 (12.6, 24.8) 50 (6, 79) 8 stable stable trend -1.7 (-32.0, 42.2)
Surry County No 17.7 (12.5, 24.6) 51 (9, 79) 8 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.1, -0.9)
Henderson County No 17.7 (14.1, 22.2) 52 (15, 77) 17 stable stable trend 15.4 (-8.0, 44.7)
Cabarrus County No 17.5 (13.5, 22.2) 53 (14, 78) 14 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.0, -1.6)
Rockingham County No 17.3 (12.7, 23.1) 54 (12, 79) 10 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.4, -2.1)
Beaufort County No 17.3 (11.5, 25.4) 55 (7, 79) 6 falling falling trend -4.0 (-5.4, -2.5)
Franklin County No 17.1 (11.2, 24.9) 56 (7, 79) 6 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.3, -2.5)
Caldwell County No 17.1 (12.2, 23.4) 57 (11, 79) 8 falling falling trend -3.9 (-4.8, -2.9)
Moore County No 17.0 (13.3, 21.7) 58 (17, 78) 14 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.5, -1.6)
Pitt County No 17.0 (12.8, 22.0) 59 (14, 78) 12 falling falling trend -4.1 (-5.4, -2.8)
Craven County No 16.9 (12.6, 22.4) 60 (13, 79) 10 falling falling trend -4.0 (-5.3, -2.6)
Cleveland County Yes 16.8 (11.9, 23.0) 61 (12, 79) 8 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.2, -2.7)
Lenoir County Yes 16.7 (10.9, 24.5) 62 (7, 79) 5 falling falling trend -4.6 (-5.9, -3.2)
Cherokee County Yes 16.6 (10.3, 26.9) 63 (6, 79) 4
*
*
Stokes County Yes 16.5 (10.6, 24.8) 64 (7, 79) 5 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.6, -2.2)
Lincoln County Yes 16.1 (11.2, 22.4) 65 (14, 79) 8 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.3, -2.4)
Randolph County Yes 15.7 (11.9, 20.3) 66 (26, 79) 12 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.6, -2.1)
Gaston County Yes 15.7 (12.5, 19.5) 67 (26, 79) 17 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.3, -2.0)
Jackson County Yes 15.5 (9.3, 24.5) 68 (7, 79) 4
*
*
Columbus County Yes 15.3 (9.6, 23.3) 69 (10, 79) 5 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.6, -2.3)
Carteret County Yes 14.8 (10.5, 20.6) 70 (24, 79) 8 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.2, -2.5)
Buncombe County Yes 14.7 (12.1, 17.7) 71 (40, 79) 23 falling falling trend -3.9 (-4.7, -3.1)
Lee County Yes 14.4 (8.9, 22.0) 72 (13, 79) 4 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.2, -2.2)
Transylvania County Yes 14.4 (9.4, 22.5) 73 (16, 79) 5 falling falling trend -5.0 (-6.5, -3.3)
Stanly County Yes 14.3 (9.1, 21.4) 74 (15, 79) 5 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.6, -1.7)
Duplin County Yes 14.1 (9.0, 21.3) 75 (17, 79) 5 falling falling trend -5.6 (-6.9, -4.3)
Alexander County Yes 13.8 (7.7, 23.0) 76 (10, 79) 3
*
*
Ashe County Yes 13.5 (7.5, 23.7) 77 (13, 79) 3 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.0, -0.7)
Watauga County Yes 12.9 (7.6, 20.7) 78 (19, 79) 4
*
*
McDowell County Yes 11.6 (6.7, 19.1) 79 (27, 79) 3 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.1, -1.0)
Alleghany County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Anson County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bertie County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Currituck County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perquimans County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Scotland County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 01/26/2023 5:30 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.

* 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.

Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer incidence statistics. When the population size for a denominator is small, the rates may be unstable. A rate is unstable when a small change in the numerator (e.g., only one or two additional cases) has a dramatic effect on the calculated rate.

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