Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Uterus (Corpus & Uterus, NOS) (All Stages^), 2017-2021

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Recentaapc
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
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 ascending
North Carolina 6 N/A 26.9 (26.4, 27.5) N/A 1,879 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.3, 2.2)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 27.8 (27.7, 27.9) N/A 58,425 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.5, 0.9)
Martin County 6 Rural 32.1 (21.1, 47.7) 13 (1, 86) 7 rising rising trend 32.4 (1.4, 57.8)
Wayne County 6 Urban 32.9 (27.1, 39.6) 8 (1, 66) 25 rising rising trend 16.6 (2.4, 27.2)
Cabarrus County 6 Urban 22.4 (18.9, 26.4) 74 (34, 85) 30 stable stable trend 8.5 (-1.0, 16.0)
Granville County 6 Rural 31.6 (24.3, 40.7) 16 (1, 78) 14 rising rising trend 4.3 (0.4, 9.8)
Randolph County 6 Urban 34.2 (29.0, 40.1) 7 (1, 50) 34 rising rising trend 4.3 (1.9, 7.3)
Person County 6 Urban 26.6 (18.1, 38.0) 49 (2, 86) 8 stable stable trend 4.2 (-0.2, 20.0)
Warren County 6 Rural 32.8 (21.3, 49.9) 9 (1, 85) 6 stable stable trend 4.2 (-0.5, 10.5)
Lee County 6 Rural 27.9 (21.0, 36.4) 45 (3, 84) 12 rising rising trend 4.1 (0.7, 8.8)
McDowell County 6 Rural 29.2 (20.7, 40.4) 30 (1, 85) 9 rising rising trend 4.0 (0.6, 8.2)
Stanly County 6 Rural 25.5 (18.7, 34.2) 54 (5, 86) 10 rising rising trend 4.0 (0.2, 16.9)
Caldwell County 6 Urban 30.8 (24.2, 38.7) 21 (1, 77) 18 stable stable trend 3.9 (0.0, 8.6)
Rowan County 6 Urban 30.6 (25.8, 36.1) 23 (3, 70) 31 rising rising trend 3.9 (1.0, 7.4)
Robeson County 6 Rural 32.3 (26.6, 39.0) 10 (1, 65) 24 stable stable trend 3.8 (-19.5, 21.8)
Cleveland County 6 Rural 29.8 (24.0, 36.8) 27 (2, 77) 20 rising rising trend 3.6 (1.1, 6.5)
Onslow County 6 Urban 31.9 (26.6, 37.9) 14 (2, 65) 27 rising rising trend 3.6 (1.7, 6.0)
Craven County 6 Rural 37.6 (30.9, 45.5) 4 (1, 44) 25 stable stable trend 3.4 (-0.1, 7.5)
Scotland County 6 Rural 34.7 (24.0, 48.9) 6 (1, 82) 8 stable stable trend 3.4 (-0.4, 7.9)
Stokes County 6 Urban 30.9 (22.8, 41.4) 19 (1, 83) 11 rising rising trend 3.4 (0.4, 7.2)
Yadkin County 6 Urban 30.2 (21.1, 42.3) 26 (1, 85) 8 stable stable trend 3.2 (-1.6, 8.7)
Cumberland County 6 Urban 31.4 (27.9, 35.3) 18 (4, 55) 59 rising rising trend 3.1 (1.7, 4.9)
Sampson County 6 Rural 35.9 (27.9, 45.6) 5 (1, 69) 15 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.4, 6.1)
Rockingham County 6 Urban 30.6 (24.9, 37.4) 22 (2, 75) 22 rising rising trend 2.9 (0.6, 5.5)
Haywood County 6 Rural 24.6 (18.4, 32.5) 64 (7, 86) 13 stable stable trend 2.8 (-1.8, 8.5)
Lincoln County 6 Urban 29.2 (23.0, 36.7) 33 (3, 81) 17 rising rising trend 2.7 (0.3, 5.5)
Wilkes County 6 Rural 31.9 (24.6, 40.8) 15 (1, 76) 15 stable stable trend 2.5 (-0.1, 5.4)
Gaston County 6 Urban 29.0 (25.2, 33.2) 35 (7, 71) 45 rising rising trend 2.4 (0.5, 4.8)
Halifax County 6 Rural 32.3 (23.9, 42.9) 11 (1, 79) 12 stable stable trend 2.3 (-1.4, 6.5)
Henderson County 6 Urban 25.2 (20.6, 30.8) 55 (11, 84) 25 stable stable trend 2.3 (-0.1, 5.0)
Rutherford County 6 Rural 25.2 (18.4, 33.8) 56 (4, 86) 11 stable stable trend 2.2 (-3.1, 7.6)
Edgecombe County 6 Urban 30.8 (23.0, 40.6) 20 (1, 81) 12 stable stable trend 2.0 (-1.1, 5.3)
Pitt County 6 Urban 31.6 (26.7, 37.1) 17 (2, 65) 32 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.2, 4.6)
Duplin County 6 Rural 30.4 (22.4, 40.6) 24 (1, 83) 11 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.3, 5.5)
Union County 6 Urban 26.1 (22.4, 30.2) 51 (16, 78) 37 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.2, 4.7)
Pender County 6 Urban 28.5 (21.4, 37.4) 41 (2, 83) 12 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.7, 4.8)
Wake County 6 Urban 29.3 (27.4, 31.3) 29 (13, 52) 184 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.7, 3.0)
Forsyth County 6 Urban 28.2 (25.4, 31.4) 44 (14, 65) 75 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.7, 2.8)
Jackson County 6 Rural 18.6 (12.0, 28.0) 86 (21, 86) 6 stable stable trend 1.6 (-2.9, 7.1)
Bladen County 6 Rural 32.2 (22.4, 45.5) 12 (1, 84) 8 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.5, 4.5)
Dare County 6 Rural 22.9 (15.9, 32.6) 70 (7, 86) 8 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.3, 6.0)
Guilford County 6 Urban 24.5 (22.2, 27.0) 65 (36, 77) 87 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.3, 2.5)
Lenoir County 6 Rural 28.7 (21.6, 37.7) 38 (2, 85) 12 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.6, 4.9)
Richmond County 6 Rural 29.2 (21.2, 39.6) 31 (1, 84) 9 stable stable trend 1.1 (-3.4, 6.4)
Surry County 6 Rural 30.4 (23.9, 38.3) 25 (1, 79) 16 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.9, 3.4)
Buncombe County 6 Urban 24.6 (21.5, 28.1) 62 (27, 80) 50 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.3, 3.5)
Chatham County 6 Urban 26.7 (21.0, 33.7) 48 (5, 83) 18 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.3, 5.3)
Orange County 6 Urban 27.3 (22.6, 32.8) 47 (7, 79) 24 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.1, 3.6)
Alexander County 6 Urban 24.6 (16.4, 35.9) 61 (2, 86) 6 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.1, 4.2)
Davie County 6 Urban 28.3 (20.2, 39.0) 42 (1, 85) 9 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.6, 3.6)
Iredell County 6 Urban 24.8 (20.9, 29.2) 60 (20, 82) 30 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.1, 3.3)
Moore County 6 Urban 23.4 (18.6, 29.1) 67 (19, 85) 19 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.4, 3.3)
Wilson County 6 Rural 25.8 (20.1, 32.8) 52 (6, 84) 15 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.1, 3.9)
Burke County 6 Urban 27.7 (22.1, 34.6) 46 (4, 82) 18 stable stable trend 0.7 (-2.1, 3.7)
Durham County 6 Urban 28.6 (25.3, 32.3) 39 (9, 67) 56 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.0, 2.8)
Yancey County 6 Rural 21.4 (12.5, 36.2) 78 (4, 86) 4 stable stable trend 0.7 (-5.2, 7.4)
Ashe County 6 Rural 18.7 (11.8, 29.7) 85 (18, 86) 5 stable stable trend 0.6 (-3.5, 5.4)
Johnston County 6 Urban 28.9 (24.8, 33.5) 36 (8, 73) 38 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.5, 2.5)
Mecklenburg County 6 Urban 25.7 (23.9, 27.5) 53 (34, 71) 158 stable stable trend 0.3 (-7.2, 2.1)
Harnett County 6 Rural 29.2 (24.0, 35.3) 32 (4, 77) 22 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.5, 3.2)
Hoke County 6 Urban 28.6 (19.8, 39.8) 40 (1, 86) 7 stable stable trend 0.2 (-4.9, 6.5)
Davidson County 6 Urban 23.2 (19.3, 27.7) 68 (25, 85) 27 stable stable trend 0.1 (-7.0, 2.0)
Brunswick County 6 Urban 22.0 (18.5, 26.3) 75 (36, 85) 35 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.8, 3.7)
Transylvania County 6 Rural 28.3 (19.1, 41.1) 43 (1, 86) 8 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.8, 3.9)
Nash County 6 Urban 24.9 (19.6, 31.3) 58 (9, 84) 17 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.6, 3.5)
New Hanover County 6 Urban 21.7 (18.5, 25.4) 76 (43, 85) 35 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.6, 1.3)
Polk County 6 Rural 23.9 (12.8, 42.1) 66 (1, 86) 4 stable stable trend -0.3 (-6.1, 5.6)
Carteret County 6 Rural 21.5 (16.2, 28.2) 77 (20, 86) 13 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.5, 1.9)
Columbus County 6 Rural 28.9 (21.5, 38.2) 37 (2, 84) 11 stable stable trend -0.8 (-5.2, 3.9)
Beaufort County 6 Rural 22.4 (16.2, 30.8) 73 (10, 86) 10 stable stable trend -0.9 (-4.1, 2.4)
Catawba County 6 Urban 22.9 (18.9, 27.5) 71 (27, 85) 25 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.2, 1.3)
Franklin County 6 Urban 22.8 (17.1, 29.9) 72 (14, 86) 11 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.2, 2.2)
Macon County 6 Rural 19.8 (13.4, 29.1) 84 (17, 86) 7 stable stable trend -1.2 (-6.6, 4.5)
Vance County 6 Rural 29.1 (21.3, 39.2) 34 (2, 84) 10 stable stable trend -1.7 (-10.7, 1.3)
Caswell County 6 Rural 20.8 (11.8, 35.0) 81 (5, 86) 4 stable stable trend -1.9 (-7.2, 3.2)
Hertford County 6 Rural 20.9 (11.1, 36.4) 79 (2, 86) 3 stable stable trend -2.3 (-7.7, 3.0)
Watauga County 6 Rural 20.3 (13.7, 29.4) 82 (14, 86) 7 stable stable trend -2.6 (-8.2, 3.3)
Pasquotank County 6 Rural 25.2 (17.3, 35.9) 57 (3, 86) 7 stable stable trend -2.7 (-22.0, 2.9)
Alamance County 6 Urban 24.9 (20.8, 29.5) 59 (16, 84) 28 stable stable trend -5.5 (-17.4, 1.1)
Cherokee County 6 Rural 24.6 (16.0, 37.3) 63 (2, 86) 7 falling falling trend -35.0 (-53.1, -20.3)
Anson County 6 Urban 39.5 (25.9, 58.2) 2 (1, 81) 6
*
*
Bertie County 6 Rural 40.1 (25.2, 61.8) 1 (1, 84) 6
*
*
Chowan County 6 Rural 38.4 (22.8, 62.2) 3 (1, 85) 5
*
*
Greene County 6 Rural 26.2 (14.9, 43.8) 50 (1, 86) 4
*
*
Madison County 6 Urban 23.1 (13.3, 38.2) 69 (1, 86) 4
*
*
Mitchell County 6 Rural 29.4 (17.0, 49.4) 28 (1, 86) 4
*
*
Montgomery County 6 Rural 20.9 (12.1, 34.2) 80 (4, 86) 4
*
*
Northampton County 6 Rural 20.2 (12.2, 34.4) 83 (6, 86) 4
*
*
Alleghany County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Currituck County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perquimans County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/09/2024 10:44 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