Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Stomach (All Stages^), 2016-2020

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

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Age-Adjusted Incidence Rate
cases 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 Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
North Carolina 6 6.2 (6.0, 6.4) N/A 788 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.2, 1.1)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 6.2 (6.2, 6.3) N/A 23,883 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.7)
Hertford County 6 9.4 (5.4, 15.7) 1 (1, 64) 3
*
*
Sampson County 6 9.2 (6.4, 12.9) 2 (1, 55) 7 stable stable trend 2.5 (-1.5, 7.7)
Stanly County 6 8.7 (5.8, 12.5) 3 (1, 61) 6 stable stable trend 1.6 (-4.2, 8.4)
Edgecombe County 6 8.7 (5.8, 12.6) 4 (1, 60) 6 stable stable trend -1.6 (-6.7, 4.0)
Scotland County 6 8.3 (4.8, 13.4) 5 (1, 65) 4
*
*
Cumberland County 6 8.2 (6.8, 9.7) 6 (1, 40) 26 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.3, 3.5)
Franklin County 6 8.1 (5.5, 11.6) 7 (1, 62) 7 stable stable trend -3.6 (-7.4, 0.4)
Onslow County 6 8.0 (6.1, 10.4) 8 (1, 53) 11 stable stable trend 3.4 (-0.1, 8.5)
Johnston County 6 7.9 (6.3, 9.8) 9 (1, 47) 17 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.4, 4.7)
Nash County 6 7.9 (5.7, 10.6) 10 (1, 57) 10 stable stable trend -2.9 (-8.5, 3.1)
Wayne County 6 7.9 (5.9, 10.3) 11 (1, 55) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-5.9, 5.3)
Columbus County 6 7.8 (5.2, 11.4) 12 (1, 63) 6 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.3, 1.5)
Hoke County 6 7.8 (4.6, 12.3) 13 (1, 65) 4
*
*
Rutherford County 6 7.8 (5.4, 11.0) 14 (1, 61) 8 stable stable trend 1.1 (-7.1, 10.2)
Durham County 6 7.7 (6.4, 9.3) 15 (2, 44) 25 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.7, 3.5)
Robeson County 6 7.5 (5.6, 9.9) 16 (1, 57) 11 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.7, 5.1)
Harnett County 6 7.5 (5.6, 10.0) 17 (1, 58) 10 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.9, 3.5)
Halifax County 6 7.5 (4.9, 11.0) 18 (1, 64) 6 stable stable trend 2.3 (-2.5, 8.5)
Vance County 6 7.2 (4.3, 11.4) 19 (1, 65) 4 stable stable trend 0.2 (-5.2, 6.6)
Lenoir County 6 7.0 (4.4, 10.6) 20 (1, 65) 5 rising rising trend 40.8 (4.7, 79.7)
Macon County 6 6.9 (4.0, 11.4) 21 (1, 65) 4
*
*
Craven County 6 6.9 (4.9, 9.3) 22 (2, 63) 9 stable stable trend 1.9 (-2.0, 7.0)
Cleveland County 6 6.8 (5.0, 9.2) 23 (2, 62) 9 stable stable trend 1.5 (-2.7, 6.5)
Iredell County 6 6.8 (5.3, 8.6) 24 (3, 58) 15 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.5, 3.7)
Lincoln County 6 6.8 (4.7, 9.5) 25 (1, 63) 7 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.3, 5.6)
Mecklenburg County 6 6.7 (6.0, 7.5) 26 (11, 46) 71 stable stable trend -0.2 (-13.3, 5.3)
Cabarrus County 6 6.7 (5.2, 8.5) 27 (4, 60) 15 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.5, 4.0)
Beaufort County 6 6.7 (4.2, 10.4) 28 (1, 65) 5 stable stable trend 2.6 (-3.4, 10.6)
Pitt County 6 6.7 (5.1, 8.7) 29 (3, 60) 12 stable stable trend -3.1 (-7.6, 1.7)
Wake County 6 6.6 (6.0, 7.4) 30 (12, 47) 72 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.2, 2.5)
Pasquotank County 6 6.5 (3.7, 10.8) 31 (1, 65) 3 stable stable trend -1.1 (-5.6, 3.8)
Granville County 6 6.5 (4.3, 9.6) 32 (1, 65) 6
*
*
Person County 6 6.5 (3.9, 10.4) 33 (1, 65) 4
*
*
Guilford County 6 6.4 (5.5, 7.4) 34 (12, 54) 39 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.5, 3.0)
Surry County 6 6.3 (4.3, 9.1) 35 (2, 64) 7 stable stable trend 2.7 (-1.3, 8.1)
Alexander County 6 6.3 (3.6, 10.5) 36 (1, 65) 3
*
*
Davie County 6 6.3 (3.8, 9.9) 37 (1, 65) 4 stable stable trend 1.4 (-4.5, 9.7)
Chatham County 6 6.2 (4.4, 8.8) 38 (3, 64) 8 stable stable trend -0.1 (-5.1, 6.8)
Richmond County 6 6.2 (3.5, 10.3) 39 (1, 65) 3 stable stable trend 2.5 (-1.4, 7.1)
Davidson County 6 6.1 (4.7, 7.8) 40 (7, 63) 14 stable stable trend -7.7 (-21.6, 3.9)
Union County 6 5.9 (4.6, 7.4) 41 (10, 62) 15 stable stable trend 2.4 (-1.2, 7.6)
Wilson County 6 5.8 (3.9, 8.3) 42 (4, 65) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-4.1, 6.0)
Rockingham County 6 5.8 (4.1, 8.0) 43 (6, 65) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.6, 1.9)
Henderson County 6 5.7 (4.2, 7.7) 44 (8, 64) 11 stable stable trend 17.1 (-6.3, 37.1)
Catawba County 6 5.7 (4.3, 7.5) 45 (10, 64) 11 rising rising trend 3.6 (0.4, 7.8)
Burke County 6 5.7 (3.9, 8.1) 46 (5, 65) 7 stable stable trend 2.7 (-1.1, 7.1)
Forsyth County 6 5.7 (4.7, 6.8) 47 (17, 62) 26 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.7, 1.7)
Gaston County 6 5.6 (4.4, 7.1) 48 (13, 64) 16 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.3, 2.3)
Stokes County 6 5.6 (3.4, 9.0) 49 (2, 65) 4 stable stable trend 1.8 (-2.2, 7.0)
Wilkes County 6 5.5 (3.5, 8.3) 50 (4, 65) 5 stable stable trend -3.3 (-6.8, 0.1)
Randolph County 6 5.5 (4.1, 7.3) 51 (11, 65) 11 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.7, 3.2)
Jackson County 6 5.5 (3.1, 9.3) 52 (2, 65) 3 stable stable trend 0.7 (-6.0, 9.7)
Haywood County 6 5.4 (3.6, 8.1) 53 (6, 65) 6 stable stable trend -0.6 (-5.0, 4.9)
Rowan County 6 5.3 (3.9, 7.2) 54 (12, 65) 10 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.7, 5.3)
Alamance County 6 5.2 (3.9, 6.9) 55 (14, 65) 11 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.5, 6.0)
Pender County 6 5.2 (3.2, 8.2) 56 (4, 65) 4 stable stable trend -2.5 (-8.6, 4.6)
Buncombe County 6 5.1 (4.1, 6.3) 57 (24, 64) 19 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.4, 3.8)
New Hanover County 6 5.0 (3.9, 6.3) 58 (25, 65) 15 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.8, 3.7)
Orange County 6 4.9 (3.4, 6.8) 59 (14, 65) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.5, 4.4)
McDowell County 6 4.8 (2.7, 8.1) 60 (5, 65) 3 stable stable trend 2.4 (-1.9, 8.3)
Lee County 6 4.6 (2.7, 7.4) 61 (9, 65) 4
*
*
Carteret County 6 4.4 (2.8, 6.7) 62 (18, 65) 5 stable stable trend -0.1 (-5.4, 6.2)
Moore County 6 4.3 (2.9, 6.3) 63 (25, 65) 7 stable stable trend -3.6 (-8.0, 0.7)
Caldwell County 6 4.0 (2.6, 6.1) 64 (25, 65) 5
*
*
Brunswick County 6 3.6 (2.6, 5.0) 65 (47, 65) 10 stable stable trend -3.6 (-8.0, 1.5)
Alleghany County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Anson County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ashe County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bertie County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bladen County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Caswell County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cherokee County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chowan County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Currituck County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dare County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Duplin County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Martin County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Montgomery County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Northampton County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perquimans County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Transylvania County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Warren County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Watauga County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yadkin County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yancey County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/28/2024 3:17 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.

† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Rates calculated using SEER*Stat. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.
‡ Incidence data come 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 area for additional information.

Rates and trends are computed using different standards for malignancy. For more information see malignant.html.

^ All Stages refers to any stage in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) summary stage.
⋔ 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.

* 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).

1 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2022 submission).
8 Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program and are based on APCs. Data are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84,85+). Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modifed by NCI. The US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2022 data.
Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.
Data for the 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