Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Melanoma of the Skin (All Stages^), 2015-2019

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 26.4 (26.0, 26.9) N/A 3,169 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.2, 2.3)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 22.9 (22.8, 23.0) N/A 85,587 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.0)
Dare County 6 41.3 (33.2, 50.9) 1 (1, 38) 20 rising rising trend 4.3 (1.0, 7.6)
Moore County 6 40.4 (35.7, 45.7) 2 (1, 22) 61 rising rising trend 2.2 (0.5, 3.9)
Watauga County 6 40.3 (33.0, 48.9) 3 (1, 37) 24 rising rising trend 4.7 (2.4, 7.0)
Davie County 6 39.9 (32.5, 48.6) 4 (1, 40) 23 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.0, 3.2)
Iredell County 6 39.1 (35.3, 43.2) 5 (1, 21) 80 rising rising trend 5.6 (3.6, 7.6)
Carteret County 6 37.3 (31.8, 43.5) 6 (1, 39) 40 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.0, 3.4)
Avery County 6 37.0 (26.7, 50.5) 7 (1, 66) 9 rising rising trend 5.5 (1.9, 9.4)
Ashe County 6 36.7 (27.8, 47.6) 8 (1, 61) 15
*
*
Lincoln County 6 36.2 (31.0, 42.0) 9 (1, 43) 38 rising rising trend 3.9 (1.4, 6.5)
Brunswick County 6 35.4 (31.7, 39.5) 10 (2, 34) 88 rising rising trend 8.9 (5.3, 12.7)
Caldwell County 6 35.2 (30.2, 40.8) 11 (1, 43) 39 rising rising trend 2.7 (0.8, 4.7)
Yancey County 6 34.2 (24.0, 47.6) 12 (1, 71) 9 stable stable trend 2.3 (-2.1, 7.0)
Stanly County 6 34.0 (28.3, 40.7) 13 (1, 52) 26 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.2, 4.3)
Polk County 6 34.0 (24.3, 46.6) 14 (1, 72) 11
*
*
Catawba County 6 33.7 (30.0, 37.7) 15 (3, 41) 66 rising rising trend 3.4 (1.7, 5.0)
Cleveland County 6 33.6 (28.9, 38.8) 16 (2, 49) 40 rising rising trend 5.3 (2.8, 8.0)
Macon County 6 33.4 (26.4, 42.1) 17 (1, 57) 19 rising rising trend 2.6 (0.1, 5.3)
Alexander County 6 33.2 (26.4, 41.4) 18 (1, 59) 18 stable stable trend 2.9 (-0.2, 6.0)
Burke County 6 33.2 (28.6, 38.4) 19 (2, 49) 41 rising rising trend 3.7 (2.4, 5.0)
Gaston County 6 33.2 (30.0, 36.5) 20 (5, 40) 85 rising rising trend 5.8 (4.0, 7.7)
Haywood County 6 32.7 (27.3, 39.0) 21 (2, 54) 30 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.3, 3.5)
Montgomery County 6 32.6 (24.3, 43.1) 22 (1, 69) 11 rising rising trend 7.1 (2.7, 11.7)
Randolph County 6 32.5 (28.8, 36.6) 23 (5, 48) 59 rising rising trend 2.3 (0.4, 4.2)
Madison County 6 32.4 (23.5, 43.8) 24 (1, 71) 10
*
*
McDowell County 6 32.2 (25.9, 39.8) 25 (1, 61) 19 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.9, 5.1)
Buncombe County 6 31.7 (28.9, 34.6) 26 (9, 44) 107 rising rising trend 2.5 (0.8, 4.2)
New Hanover County 6 31.5 (28.5, 34.7) 27 (8, 46) 85 rising rising trend 4.7 (2.6, 6.8)
Jackson County 6 31.1 (24.5, 39.1) 28 (1, 65) 17 rising rising trend 3.8 (0.8, 7.0)
Graham County 6 30.5 (17.2, 50.8) 29 (1, 93) 4
*
*
Henderson County 6 30.0 (26.2, 34.2) 30 (9, 54) 54 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.3, 2.8)
Rutherford County 6 29.9 (24.8, 35.8) 31 (6, 62) 27 rising rising trend 3.6 (0.4, 6.9)
Chatham County 6 29.7 (25.1, 35.0) 32 (8, 61) 33 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.9, 2.7)
Davidson County 6 29.6 (26.3, 33.3) 33 (12, 55) 60 stable stable trend -1.6 (-5.1, 1.9)
Union County 6 29.5 (26.5, 32.9) 34 (14, 54) 71 rising rising trend 3.8 (1.9, 5.8)
Person County 6 29.1 (22.6, 36.9) 35 (3, 71) 16 rising rising trend 5.1 (1.7, 8.7)
Mitchell County 6 28.9 (18.9, 42.8) 36 (1, 88) 6 rising rising trend 4.7 (1.1, 8.3)
Surry County 6 28.7 (24.0, 34.1) 37 (9, 64) 29 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.6, 3.4)
Yadkin County 6 28.6 (21.9, 36.7) 38 (3, 76) 14 falling falling trend -16.7 (-25.7, -6.5)
Guilford County 6 27.7 (25.8, 29.7) 39 (25, 54) 165 stable stable trend -4.5 (-9.7, 1.1)
Onslow County 6 27.4 (23.7, 31.6) 40 (14, 63) 41 rising rising trend 3.4 (1.2, 5.7)
Stokes County 6 27.4 (21.6, 34.3) 41 (7, 75) 17 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.2, 3.1)
Cabarrus County 6 27.4 (24.3, 30.7) 42 (20, 60) 60 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.1, 3.9)
Wake County 6 27.3 (25.8, 28.8) 43 (30, 53) 286 rising rising trend 2.2 (0.8, 3.6)
Alamance County 6 27.1 (23.9, 30.7) 44 (20, 60) 54 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.0, 2.7)
Orange County 6 27.0 (23.3, 31.1) 45 (18, 63) 41 stable stable trend -3.9 (-8.8, 1.2)
Pamlico County 6 26.7 (17.3, 40.8) 46 (1, 91) 6 stable stable trend 3.2 (-1.1, 7.7)
Pender County 6 26.4 (21.3, 32.4) 47 (14, 75) 20 stable stable trend 2.0 (-1.8, 5.9)
Transylvania County 6 25.8 (19.5, 33.8) 48 (6, 82) 15 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.8, 4.9)
Cherokee County 6 25.7 (18.9, 34.7) 49 (5, 85) 12 stable stable trend 0.3 (-4.2, 5.1)
Swain County 6 25.7 (16.5, 38.8) 50 (1, 91) 5
*
*
Wilkes County 6 25.6 (21.0, 31.0) 51 (16, 74) 24 rising rising trend 2.7 (0.6, 4.9)
Rowan County 6 25.3 (22.0, 29.0) 52 (26, 68) 44 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.4, 3.5)
Alleghany County 6 25.1 (15.5, 39.7) 53 (1, 92) 5 stable stable trend 1.6 (-5.5, 9.2)
Johnston County 6 25.1 (22.0, 28.4) 54 (29, 67) 53 rising rising trend 4.1 (2.2, 6.2)
Craven County 6 24.4 (20.5, 28.8) 55 (26, 76) 31 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.0, 2.7)
Mecklenburg County 6 23.6 (22.2, 25.0) 56 (45, 65) 241 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.0, 2.9)
Franklin County 6 23.0 (18.4, 28.4) 57 (26, 83) 19 rising rising trend 4.4 (0.5, 8.4)
Clay County 6 22.7 (12.6, 38.8) 58 (1, 94) 4
*
*
Rockingham County 6 22.5 (18.8, 26.8) 59 (32, 79) 29 stable stable trend 2.8 (0.0, 5.8)
Currituck County 6 22.1 (14.9, 31.7) 60 (10, 92) 7 falling falling trend -12.8 (-21.6, -2.9)
Durham County 6 21.6 (19.3, 24.1) 61 (48, 75) 69 rising rising trend 2.8 (1.1, 4.5)
Forsyth County 6 21.6 (19.6, 23.7) 62 (49, 75) 94 falling falling trend -4.9 (-7.5, -2.2)
Lenoir County 6 21.0 (16.6, 26.3) 63 (35, 86) 17 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.6, 4.8)
Caswell County 6 20.7 (13.9, 30.1) 64 (15, 93) 7 rising rising trend 5.4 (2.2, 8.8)
Lee County 6 19.7 (15.3, 25.1) 65 (38, 91) 14 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.0, 2.9)
Harnett County 6 19.5 (16.3, 23.3) 66 (49, 87) 26 stable stable trend 1.5 (-0.9, 4.0)
Granville County 6 19.2 (15.0, 24.4) 67 (40, 90) 15 stable stable trend 1.7 (-1.0, 4.4)
Gates County 6 19.2 (10.5, 33.0) 68 (8, 94) 3
*
*
Pasquotank County 6 18.8 (13.4, 25.6) 69 (35, 93) 8 stable stable trend 0.8 (-3.9, 5.8)
Columbus County 6 18.7 (14.3, 24.1) 70 (42, 91) 13 stable stable trend 2.7 (0.0, 5.5)
Washington County 6 18.4 (10.0, 31.7) 71 (12, 94) 4
*
*
Beaufort County 6 18.3 (13.9, 23.7) 72 (46, 91) 14 stable stable trend -2.5 (-4.9, 0.0)
Wayne County 6 18.2 (15.1, 21.7) 73 (53, 89) 26 rising rising trend 3.8 (1.2, 6.5)
Vance County 6 18.2 (13.5, 24.1) 74 (44, 92) 11 rising rising trend 5.0 (2.5, 7.6)
Sampson County 6 18.1 (13.9, 23.2) 75 (46, 91) 13 stable stable trend 2.9 (-0.1, 6.0)
Wilson County 6 17.4 (13.8, 21.7) 76 (52, 91) 17 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.5, 4.6)
Pitt County 6 17.3 (14.6, 20.3) 77 (59, 90) 30 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.7, 2.4)
Perquimans County 6 17.2 (10.3, 28.2) 78 (23, 94) 4 stable stable trend -3.5 (-8.4, 1.7)
Hoke County 6 17.0 (12.0, 23.4) 79 (44, 94) 8 stable stable trend 2.1 (-1.7, 6.0)
Nash County 6 16.8 (13.6, 20.6) 80 (57, 92) 21 stable stable trend -0.2 (-3.0, 2.6)
Anson County 6 16.8 (10.8, 25.1) 81 (35, 94) 5 rising rising trend 7.3 (3.5, 11.3)
Richmond County 6 16.7 (12.1, 22.6) 82 (49, 94) 9 stable stable trend 4.0 (-0.4, 8.5)
Duplin County 6 16.3 (12.3, 21.3) 83 (53, 93) 12 stable stable trend 1.6 (-2.2, 5.4)
Chowan County 6 16.0 (9.2, 26.9) 84 (29, 94) 4 stable stable trend -0.2 (-4.5, 4.2)
Bladen County 6 15.7 (10.8, 22.2) 85 (51, 94) 7 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.7, 4.1)
Cumberland County 6 15.6 (13.6, 17.8) 86 (68, 91) 48 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.2, 3.5)
Edgecombe County 6 15.2 (11.0, 20.5) 87 (56, 94) 10 rising rising trend 4.5 (0.2, 8.9)
Greene County 6 15.0 (8.6, 24.3) 88 (39, 94) 3 stable stable trend 0.4 (-4.6, 5.7)
Scotland County 6 12.8 (8.5, 18.7) 89 (63, 94) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-3.1, 4.4)
Northampton County 6 12.3 (7.7, 19.5) 90 (62, 94) 5 stable stable trend 3.5 (-1.9, 9.1)
Halifax County 6 12.0 (8.8, 16.3) 91 (71, 94) 9 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.4, 3.5)
Martin County 6 11.0 (6.5, 17.9) 92 (64, 94) 4 stable stable trend -2.2 (-6.8, 2.6)
Warren County 6 10.9 (6.0, 18.9) 93 (59, 94) 3 stable stable trend 3.4 (-3.5, 10.9)
Robeson County 6 10.8 (8.4, 13.6) 94 (82, 94) 15 rising rising trend 2.9 (0.3, 5.6)
Bertie County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hertford County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/27/2022 12:58 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.

⋔ 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.

† 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.
* 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 (2001-2019) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2021 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database (2001-2019) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2021 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 2021 data.

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 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