Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Pancreas (All Stages^), 2017-2021

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

Sorted by Ruralurban

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban ascending
Age-Adjusted Incidence Rate
cases 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 Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
North Carolina 6 N/A 13.9 (13.6, 14.2) N/A 1,798 rising rising trend 1.6 (1.2, 2.0)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 13.5 (13.4, 13.5) N/A 54,094 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.6)
Alamance County 6 Urban 13.2 (11.1, 15.6) 62 (15, 84) 29 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.8, 3.9)
Alexander County 6 Urban 10.5 (7.0, 15.4) 85 (16, 89) 6
*
*
Anson County 6 Urban 21.4 (14.3, 31.0) 2 (1, 82) 6 stable stable trend 4.9 (-0.3, 11.7)
Brunswick County 6 Urban 13.5 (11.5, 16.0) 52 (14, 83) 38 stable stable trend 1.6 (-0.5, 4.4)
Buncombe County 6 Urban 13.6 (12.0, 15.3) 51 (21, 80) 55 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.9, 2.5)
Burke County 6 Urban 12.7 (10.0, 15.9) 72 (14, 87) 17 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.9, 5.2)
Cabarrus County 6 Urban 13.2 (11.1, 15.5) 63 (16, 84) 30 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.1, 2.2)
Caldwell County 6 Urban 15.9 (12.7, 19.7) 25 (2, 81) 18 stable stable trend 3.2 (-8.0, 12.7)
Catawba County 6 Urban 11.6 (9.6, 13.9) 77 (32, 88) 25 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.5, 3.1)
Chatham County 6 Urban 13.4 (10.7, 16.7) 58 (9, 86) 18 rising rising trend 3.1 (1.2, 5.6)
Cumberland County 6 Urban 14.5 (12.7, 16.6) 40 (12, 75) 47 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.4, 4.3)
Currituck County 6 Urban 10.7 (6.1, 17.5) 84 (4, 89) 4 stable stable trend -0.7 (-5.5, 5.1)
Davidson County 6 Urban 13.5 (11.5, 15.8) 54 (16, 83) 33 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.1, 4.2)
Davie County 6 Urban 15.1 (11.1, 20.4) 33 (2, 86) 10 stable stable trend 1.8 (-1.3, 5.5)
Durham County 6 Urban 13.7 (11.9, 15.7) 48 (17, 81) 45 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.9, 2.6)
Edgecombe County 6 Urban 16.1 (12.0, 21.2) 22 (1, 83) 11 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.5, 4.8)
Forsyth County 6 Urban 14.9 (13.3, 16.6) 35 (12, 69) 70 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.8, 2.3)
Franklin County 6 Urban 13.6 (10.2, 17.7) 50 (6, 88) 12 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.7, 4.5)
Gaston County 6 Urban 13.4 (11.5, 15.5) 57 (19, 83) 38 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.1, 2.8)
Guilford County 6 Urban 13.5 (12.2, 14.9) 55 (24, 78) 84 stable stable trend -3.0 (-11.9, 1.7)
Henderson County 6 Urban 16.4 (13.9, 19.3) 17 (3, 68) 33 rising rising trend 3.5 (1.6, 5.7)
Hoke County 6 Urban 13.7 (9.2, 19.6) 47 (2, 89) 7 stable stable trend 5.6 (-1.3, 27.8)
Iredell County 6 Urban 13.6 (11.5, 16.0) 49 (15, 82) 31 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.3, 2.8)
Johnston County 6 Urban 14.6 (12.4, 17.2) 38 (8, 78) 32 stable stable trend 2.7 (-0.1, 6.5)
Lincoln County 6 Urban 15.5 (12.3, 19.3) 28 (3, 81) 17 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.7, 5.3)
Madison County 6 Urban 10.7 (6.3, 17.8) 83 (4, 89) 4
*
*
Mecklenburg County 6 Urban 13.9 (12.9, 15.0) 45 (25, 70) 140 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.8, 2.5)
Moore County 6 Urban 15.5 (12.8, 18.6) 29 (4, 77) 25 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.8, 3.1)
Nash County 6 Urban 12.9 (10.2, 16.2) 66 (11, 87) 16 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.4, 3.8)
New Hanover County 6 Urban 14.2 (12.3, 16.3) 44 (14, 78) 42 rising rising trend 3.2 (1.3, 5.6)
Onslow County 6 Urban 12.9 (10.4, 15.7) 67 (13, 87) 20 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.0, 1.2)
Orange County 6 Urban 11.0 (8.8, 13.7) 81 (33, 89) 17 stable stable trend 2.3 (-0.6, 11.9)
Pender County 6 Urban 12.7 (9.4, 16.9) 69 (8, 89) 10 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.9, 5.0)
Person County 6 Urban 13.4 (9.5, 18.7) 56 (3, 89) 8 stable stable trend -0.6 (-5.2, 4.4)
Pitt County 6 Urban 16.7 (14.1, 19.7) 14 (2, 65) 30 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.0, 4.5)
Randolph County 6 Urban 13.5 (11.3, 16.1) 53 (13, 84) 27 stable stable trend 1.6 (-0.5, 4.0)
Rockingham County 6 Urban 15.2 (12.3, 18.6) 32 (4, 80) 21 stable stable trend 1.6 (-0.4, 3.8)
Rowan County 6 Urban 16.0 (13.6, 18.9) 24 (4, 70) 31 rising rising trend 3.5 (1.2, 6.5)
Stokes County 6 Urban 15.0 (11.1, 20.1) 34 (3, 86) 11 stable stable trend -11.2 (-27.1, 4.4)
Union County 6 Urban 14.6 (12.5, 16.9) 39 (10, 79) 36 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.8, 3.1)
Wake County 6 Urban 12.8 (11.8, 13.8) 68 (38, 79) 136 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.3, 2.1)
Wayne County 6 Urban 16.1 (13.2, 19.4) 23 (3, 74) 23 stable stable trend 2.9 (0.0, 6.1)
Yadkin County 6 Urban 14.4 (10.1, 20.3) 41 (1, 89) 8 stable stable trend 0.7 (-3.6, 5.6)
Alleghany County 6 Rural 14.8 (8.3, 26.5) 37 (1, 89) 3
*
*
Ashe County 6 Rural 10.8 (7.1, 16.4) 82 (12, 89) 6 stable stable trend -0.4 (-5.3, 4.3)
Beaufort County 6 Rural 12.1 (8.7, 16.5) 73 (11, 89) 9 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.2, 4.5)
Bertie County 6 Rural 15.9 (9.9, 24.8) 26 (1, 89) 5
*
*
Bladen County 6 Rural 11.3 (7.3, 17.0) 78 (7, 89) 6
*
*
Carteret County 6 Rural 13.4 (10.6, 16.8) 59 (11, 86) 18 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.5, 5.1)
Caswell County 6 Rural 18.7 (12.5, 27.3) 7 (1, 86) 7 rising rising trend 5.6 (0.7, 12.8)
Cherokee County 6 Rural 12.7 (8.3, 19.1) 71 (3, 89) 6 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.9, 3.0)
Chowan County 6 Rural 16.2 (9.6, 26.8) 19 (1, 89) 4
*
*
Cleveland County 6 Rural 14.2 (11.6, 17.4) 42 (7, 83) 20 stable stable trend 2.7 (0.0, 6.0)
Columbus County 6 Rural 17.9 (13.7, 23.0) 11 (1, 76) 13 stable stable trend 2.5 (-0.7, 6.5)
Craven County 6 Rural 13.1 (10.5, 16.2) 64 (11, 87) 19 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.4, 3.4)
Dare County 6 Rural 11.9 (8.0, 17.3) 75 (7, 89) 7 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.2, 1.9)
Duplin County 6 Rural 14.8 (10.9, 19.9) 36 (2, 87) 10 stable stable trend 0.7 (-2.1, 3.8)
Granville County 6 Rural 13.3 (9.9, 17.7) 60 (6, 88) 11 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.6, 2.5)
Greene County 6 Rural 11.7 (6.6, 19.6) 76 (2, 89) 3
*
*
Halifax County 6 Rural 19.0 (14.8, 24.3) 3 (1, 68) 15 rising rising trend 5.3 (1.8, 9.8)
Harnett County 6 Rural 18.1 (15.0, 21.6) 9 (1, 59) 25 rising rising trend 5.0 (2.2, 9.0)
Haywood County 6 Rural 17.9 (14.4, 22.2) 10 (1, 70) 19 stable stable trend 0.8 (-3.1, 5.1)
Jackson County 6 Rural 8.8 (5.7, 13.3) 89 (32, 89) 5 stable stable trend -0.7 (-6.4, 5.5)
Lee County 6 Rural 14.2 (10.5, 18.8) 43 (3, 87) 11 stable stable trend -0.1 (-4.0, 4.4)
Lenoir County 6 Rural 16.6 (12.8, 21.3) 16 (1, 80) 14 stable stable trend 2.4 (0.0, 5.3)
Macon County 6 Rural 15.2 (10.9, 21.0) 31 (1, 87) 10 stable stable trend 2.0 (-3.3, 8.1)
Martin County 6 Rural 18.9 (12.9, 27.2) 6 (1, 86) 7 stable stable trend 3.0 (-0.3, 7.1)
McDowell County 6 Rural 12.7 (9.1, 17.4) 70 (7, 89) 9 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.6, 2.9)
Montgomery County 6 Rural 18.9 (13.1, 26.7) 5 (1, 83) 8
*
*
Northampton County 6 Rural 11.1 (5.9, 19.7) 80 (2, 89) 3 stable stable trend 1.8 (-2.6, 6.8)
Pamlico County 6 Rural 16.2 (8.7, 29.0) 20 (1, 89) 3
*
*
Pasquotank County 6 Rural 9.5 (6.0, 14.5) 87 (17, 89) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-6.6, 4.5)
Polk County 6 Rural 11.3 (7.3, 18.1) 79 (7, 89) 5 stable stable trend 1.7 (-1.1, 5.1)
Richmond County 6 Rural 16.1 (11.8, 21.7) 21 (1, 86) 9 stable stable trend 2.3 (-1.6, 6.8)
Robeson County 6 Rural 16.7 (13.7, 20.1) 15 (2, 74) 24 stable stable trend 1.7 (-9.2, 6.8)
Rutherford County 6 Rural 13.9 (10.7, 17.9) 46 (6, 87) 14 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.8, 3.8)
Sampson County 6 Rural 19.0 (14.8, 24.0) 4 (1, 69) 15 stable stable trend 2.6 (-0.1, 5.9)
Scotland County 6 Rural 18.2 (12.9, 25.1) 8 (1, 83) 8 stable stable trend 2.2 (-3.0, 8.2)
Stanly County 6 Rural 15.3 (11.8, 19.7) 30 (2, 84) 13 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.8, 5.3)
Surry County 6 Rural 15.5 (12.3, 19.4) 27 (3, 82) 17 stable stable trend 1.5 (-0.2, 3.4)
Swain County 6 Rural 17.5 (10.4, 28.2) 13 (1, 89) 4
*
*
Transylvania County 6 Rural 9.0 (6.1, 13.6) 88 (33, 89) 6 stable stable trend -8.7 (-30.6, 1.1)
Vance County 6 Rural 17.5 (13.0, 23.4) 12 (1, 82) 10 rising rising trend 3.4 (0.8, 6.7)
Warren County 6 Rural 16.3 (11.0, 24.4) 18 (1, 88) 6 stable stable trend 1.6 (-2.8, 7.1)
Washington County 6 Rural 23.6 (13.7, 38.8) 1 (1, 88) 4
*
*
Watauga County 6 Rural 10.4 (7.0, 15.0) 86 (18, 89) 6 stable stable trend -2.0 (-7.4, 3.7)
Wilkes County 6 Rural 12.0 (9.2, 15.5) 74 (13, 89) 13 stable stable trend -0.4 (-4.4, 3.8)
Wilson County 6 Rural 13.3 (10.5, 16.9) 61 (7, 87) 15 stable stable trend -0.2 (-3.7, 3.8)
Yancey County 6 Rural 13.1 (8.2, 20.7) 65 (2, 89) 5
*
*
Avery County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hertford County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perquimans County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 01/15/2025 3:08 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.

† 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. 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.

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/Historic Combined Summary Stage (2004+).
⋔ 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.

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).
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 2023 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 2023 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 modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2023 data.

Data for the United States does not include data from Indiana.
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