Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Leukemia, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
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 *** 5.9 (5.7, 6.1) N/A 726 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.7)
United States *** 6.0 (6.0, 6.1) N/A 23,447 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.8)
Sampson County *** 10.2 (7.1, 14.1) 1 (1, 46) 8 stable stable trend 1.5 (-0.6, 3.7)
Lenoir County *** 10.1 (7.1, 14.2) 2 (1, 48) 8
*
*
Onslow County *** 9.1 (6.9, 11.6) 3 (1, 40) 12 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.5, 1.9)
Halifax County *** 8.9 (5.9, 13.1) 4 (1, 59) 6 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.9, 2.5)
Franklin County *** 8.7 (6.0, 12.3) 5 (1, 56) 7 stable stable trend 1.5 (0.0, 3.0)
Ashe County *** 8.5 (5.1, 13.9) 6 (1, 64) 4
*
*
Person County *** 8.3 (5.0, 13.0) 7 (1, 65) 4
*
*
Lincoln County *** 8.0 (5.7, 11.0) 8 (1, 59) 8 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.8, 0.6)
Cleveland County *** 8.0 (5.8, 10.6) 9 (1, 56) 10 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.1, 1.9)
Rockingham County *** 7.9 (5.8, 10.7) 10 (1, 57) 10 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.1)
Davie County *** 7.9 (5.0, 12.0) 11 (1, 64) 5
*
*
Rowan County *** 7.6 (5.9, 9.8) 12 (2, 50) 14 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.2)
Surry County *** 7.6 (5.4, 10.5) 13 (1, 60) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.6, 0.9)
Cherokee County *** 7.5 (4.2, 13.0) 14 (1, 65) 4
*
*
Carteret County *** 7.4 (5.2, 10.3) 15 (1, 61) 9
*
*
Rutherford County *** 7.4 (5.1, 10.5) 16 (1, 62) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.5, 0.9)
Stanly County *** 7.3 (5.0, 10.5) 17 (1, 62) 6
*
*
Craven County *** 7.2 (5.4, 9.5) 18 (2, 59) 11 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.6)
Randolph County *** 7.1 (5.4, 9.2) 19 (3, 57) 13 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 0.7)
Scotland County *** 7.1 (4.1, 11.6) 20 (1, 65) 3
*
*
Hoke County *** 7.0 (3.8, 11.7) 21 (1, 65) 3
*
*
Davidson County *** 7.0 (5.5, 8.8) 22 (3, 55) 15 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.5)
Columbus County *** 6.8 (4.4, 10.1) 23 (1, 65) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 0.2)
Yadkin County *** 6.7 (3.8, 11.1) 24 (1, 65) 3
*
*
Wilkes County *** 6.7 (4.6, 9.5) 25 (2, 64) 7 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.0, 2.4)
Stokes County *** 6.6 (4.1, 10.3) 26 (1, 65) 5
*
*
Catawba County *** 6.5 (5.0, 8.4) 27 (5, 60) 13 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.3)
Brunswick County *** 6.5 (5.1, 8.3) 28 (5, 60) 17
*
*
Alexander County *** 6.5 (3.7, 10.8) 29 (1, 65) 3
*
*
Jackson County *** 6.5 (3.7, 10.6) 30 (1, 65) 4 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.5, 2.2)
Forsyth County *** 6.4 (5.4, 7.5) 31 (9, 55) 28 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.0)
Watauga County *** 6.2 (3.6, 10.1) 32 (1, 65) 4
*
*
Cumberland County *** 6.2 (5.0, 7.6) 33 (9, 59) 19 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.4)
Guilford County *** 6.1 (5.3, 7.1) 34 (13, 54) 37 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.0)
Iredell County *** 6.1 (4.6, 7.8) 35 (7, 63) 12 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Buncombe County *** 6.0 (4.9, 7.4) 36 (11, 60) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Burke County *** 6.0 (4.2, 8.4) 37 (5, 65) 8 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.1, 1.7)
New Hanover County *** 5.9 (4.7, 7.3) 38 (11, 62) 17 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.7)
Robeson County *** 5.8 (4.2, 7.9) 39 (7, 64) 9 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.7, 0.4)
Pender County *** 5.7 (3.6, 8.7) 40 (4, 65) 5
*
*
Richmond County *** 5.7 (3.3, 9.3) 41 (2, 65) 3
*
*
Edgecombe County *** 5.6 (3.4, 8.9) 42 (3, 65) 4
*
*
Durham County *** 5.6 (4.5, 6.9) 43 (14, 62) 18 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.5, 0.0)
Cabarrus County *** 5.5 (4.2, 7.1) 44 (12, 64) 12 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Union County *** 5.5 (4.2, 7.0) 45 (13, 64) 13 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.1, 0.0)
Pitt County *** 5.4 (3.9, 7.2) 46 (11, 65) 9 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.6, 0.3)
Granville County *** 5.4 (3.2, 8.5) 47 (4, 65) 4
*
*
Moore County *** 5.4 (3.8, 7.4) 48 (9, 65) 9
*
*
Wake County *** 5.3 (4.6, 6.0) 49 (27, 60) 51 falling falling trend -3.8 (-5.7, -1.8)
Nash County *** 5.3 (3.6, 7.5) 50 (10, 65) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.2, 0.0)
Johnston County *** 5.2 (3.9, 6.9) 51 (14, 65) 11 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.5, -0.2)
Alamance County *** 5.2 (3.9, 6.9) 52 (14, 65) 11 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.5)
Chatham County *** 5.2 (3.5, 7.6) 53 (10, 65) 6 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.1, 0.7)
Mecklenburg County *** 5.1 (4.5, 5.8) 54 (30, 62) 48 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.2)
Gaston County *** 5.0 (3.9, 6.5) 55 (19, 65) 13 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.6)
Transylvania County *** 4.9 (2.5, 9.1) 56 (2, 65) 3
*
*
Haywood County *** 4.9 (3.1, 7.5) 57 (8, 65) 5 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.1, 2.2)
Beaufort County *** 4.9 (2.6, 8.4) 58 (4, 65) 3
*
*
Wayne County *** 4.8 (3.3, 6.7) 59 (16, 65) 7 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.6, 0.9)
Caldwell County *** 4.6 (3.0, 6.9) 60 (13, 65) 5 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.5, -0.4)
Harnett County *** 4.5 (3.0, 6.5) 61 (16, 65) 6 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.7)
Henderson County *** 4.3 (3.2, 5.9) 62 (29, 65) 10 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.6, -1.0)
Lee County *** 4.3 (2.5, 7.0) 63 (11, 65) 3
*
*
Wilson County *** 4.2 (2.6, 6.5) 64 (16, 65) 4 falling falling trend -9.3 (-15.5, -2.6)
Orange County *** 3.8 (2.5, 5.6) 65 (31, 65) 6 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 0.2)
Alleghany County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Anson County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bertie County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bladen County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Caswell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chowan County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Currituck County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dare County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Duplin County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hertford County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Macon County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Martin County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McDowell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Montgomery County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Northampton County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pasquotank County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perquimans County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Vance County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Warren County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yancey County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/05/2022 10:34 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.

* 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