Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for South Carolina by County

Lung & Bronchus, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by CI*Rank
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
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 descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
South Carolina No 39.3 (38.6, 40.0) N/A 2,685 falling falling trend -4.2 (-4.7, -3.6)
United States No 35.0 (34.9, 35.0) N/A 142,497 falling falling trend -4.8 (-5.1, -4.6)
Marlboro County No 65.2 (53.7, 78.7) 1 (1, 13) 23 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.8)
Chester County No 64.1 (53.9, 75.9) 2 (1, 11) 29 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.8)
Union County No 61.0 (50.7, 73.1) 3 (1, 15) 26 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 1.0)
Colleton County No 56.3 (47.7, 66.1) 4 (1, 21) 32 falling falling trend -4.2 (-6.4, -1.9)
Laurens County No 52.8 (46.4, 59.9) 5 (2, 21) 51 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Cherokee County No 52.0 (44.8, 60.1) 6 (1, 26) 39 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.0, -1.0)
Barnwell County No 51.9 (40.9, 65.4) 7 (1, 39) 16 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.4)
Lee County No 50.9 (38.8, 66.1) 8 (1, 42) 12 falling falling trend -4.2 (-7.1, -1.3)
Kershaw County No 50.1 (43.8, 57.2) 9 (2, 26) 47 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.7)
McCormick County No 49.9 (36.9, 69.1) 10 (1, 44) 11 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.4)
Hampton County No 49.2 (38.0, 63.1) 11 (1, 43) 14 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.4, 1.4)
Dillon County No 48.3 (39.1, 59.2) 12 (2, 40) 20 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.2)
Sumter County No 47.0 (41.9, 52.7) 13 (5, 30) 63 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Chesterfield County No 46.8 (39.6, 55.1) 14 (3, 39) 31 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
Abbeville County No 46.1 (37.0, 57.2) 15 (3, 43) 18 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Darlington County No 44.2 (38.3, 50.8) 16 (6, 39) 42 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.0, -1.7)
Anderson County No 44.0 (40.6, 47.7) 17 (9, 32) 122 falling falling trend -4.0 (-4.9, -3.2)
Spartanburg County No 43.9 (40.9, 46.9) 18 (10, 31) 173 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.1, -2.3)
Newberry County No 43.1 (35.4, 52.1) 19 (5, 43) 23 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.6)
Calhoun County No 42.8 (32.1, 56.9) 20 (3, 45) 11 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.2, 0.7)
Pickens County No 42.6 (38.1, 47.5) 21 (9, 38) 68 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.5, -1.5)
Oconee County No 41.8 (36.8, 47.4) 22 (10, 40) 54 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.5)
Williamsburg County No 41.7 (33.7, 51.4) 23 (5, 44) 20 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
Horry County No 41.3 (38.9, 43.9) 24 (14, 36) 238 falling falling trend -7.2 (-10.1, -4.3)
Berkeley County No 41.3 (37.6, 45.2) 25 (12, 40) 99 falling falling trend -8.3 (-11.9, -4.5)
Bamberg County No 41.1 (29.6, 56.3) 26 (3, 46) 9 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.1)
Allendale County No 40.9 (26.1, 62.0) 27 (1, 46) 5 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.8, -0.4)
Dorchester County No 40.2 (36.0, 44.8) 28 (12, 41) 71 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.5)
Clarendon County No 40.2 (32.8, 49.0) 29 (7, 44) 23 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.2)
Greenwood County No 39.5 (34.1, 45.7) 30 (11, 44) 39 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.9)
Marion County No 39.5 (31.6, 48.9) 31 (7, 45) 18 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.4)
York County No 39.3 (36.2, 42.7) 32 (17, 40) 121 falling falling trend -4.5 (-5.6, -3.3)
Georgetown County No 39.0 (33.9, 44.8) 33 (12, 44) 46 falling falling trend -5.3 (-8.7, -1.8)
Florence County No 38.5 (34.5, 42.9) 34 (16, 43) 70 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.2)
Lancaster County No 38.0 (33.6, 43.0) 35 (15, 44) 55 falling falling trend -5.9 (-9.1, -2.5)
Lexington County No 38.0 (35.2, 41.0) 36 (21, 41) 140 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.0)
Richland County No 37.8 (35.2, 40.6) 37 (22, 41) 156 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.9, -2.5)
Fairfield County No 37.2 (28.8, 47.8) 38 (8, 46) 14 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.2)
Aiken County No 37.2 (33.8, 40.8) 39 (21, 43) 92 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.0, -2.2)
Saluda County No 34.2 (25.7, 45.0) 40 (11, 46) 11 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.5, -1.4)
Orangeburg County No 34.0 (29.4, 39.1) 41 (24, 45) 43 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.8)
Charleston County No 33.3 (31.1, 35.7) 42 (34, 45) 171 falling falling trend -4.1 (-5.0, -3.2)
Greenville County No 33.3 (31.2, 35.4) 43 (36, 45) 208 falling falling trend -6.0 (-7.7, -4.4)
Edgefield County No 31.0 (23.5, 40.5) 44 (18, 46) 12 falling falling trend -4.8 (-6.6, -2.8)
Jasper County No 26.6 (20.0, 35.0) 45 (33, 46) 12 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.2, -1.6)
Beaufort County Yes 24.6 (22.2, 27.2) 46 (43, 46) 87 falling falling trend -7.2 (-10.9, -3.4)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/05/2022 12:35 am.

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.



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