Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Tennessee by County

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, Lung & Bronchus, All Ages
Sorted by Name
County
sort sort alphabetically by namedescending
Annual Incidence Rate
over rate period
(95% Confidence Interval)

sort sort by ratedescending
Average Annual Count
over rate period
sort sort by countdescending
Rate Period
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
sort sort by trenddescending
Tennessee 6,10 61.7 (60.6, 62.8) 2,437 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.5, 0.9)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1,10 54.1 (53.9, 54.2) 99,801 § 2008-2012 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.5)
Anderson County 6,10 64.9 (55.7, 75.4) 37 2008-2012 stable stable trend -8.2 (-18.4, 3.2)
Bedford County 6,10 60.3 (47.6, 75.5) 16 2008-2012 stable stable trend 10.5 (-5.6, 29.3)
Benton County 6,10 79.3 (58.5, 106.2) 10 2008-2012
*
*
Bledsoe County 6,10 63.9 (41.2, 96.0) 5 2008-2012
*
*
Blount County 6,10 68.6 (60.8, 77.1) 59 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.8 (-7.4, 6.3)
Bradley County 6,10 63.1 (54.7, 72.6) 41 2008-2012 stable stable trend 4.9 (-15.4, 30.1)
Campbell County 6,10 82.0 (67.9, 98.6) 25 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.7 (-24.6, 25.5)
Cannon County 6,10 49.9 (31.8, 75.8) 5 2008-2012
*
*
Carroll County 6,10 58.3 (44.8, 75.2) 13 2008-2012
*
*
Carter County 6,10 71.8 (60.7, 84.7) 31 2008-2012 stable stable trend -6.2 (-24.8, 16.9)
Cheatham County 6,10 78.3 (61.8, 97.9) 16 2008-2012 stable stable trend 6.9 (-5.3, 20.7)
Chester County 6,10 47.3 (30.6, 70.3) 5 2008-2012
*
*
Claiborne County 6,10 71.4 (56.6, 89.4) 17 2008-2012 stable stable trend 8.8 (-9.6, 31.0)
Clay County 6,10 51.0 (29.3, 86.2) 3 2008-2012
*
*
Cocke County 6,10 75.6 (61.2, 92.7) 20 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.8 (-12.2, 18.1)
Coffee County 6,10 75.8 (63.4, 90.1) 27 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.8 (-18.1, 17.8)
Crockett County 6,10 34.4 (19.7, 56.5) 3 2008-2012
*
*
Cumberland County 6,10 61.7 (52.1, 72.9) 33 2008-2012 stable stable trend -12.1 (-26.9, 5.7)
Davidson County 6,10 59.2 (55.5, 63.1) 195 2008-2012 falling falling trend -3.1 (-6.0, -0.1)
DeKalb County 6,10 56.9 (39.3, 80.2) 7 2008-2012
*
*
Decatur County 6,10 63.3 (41.4, 94.2) 6 2008-2012
*
*
Dickson County 6,10 81.4 (67.5, 97.4) 25 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.4 (-24.6, 29.0)
Dyer County 6,10 59.6 (46.9, 74.9) 15 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.9 (-4.3, 2.7)
Fayette County 6,10 54.2 (42.2, 69.0) 14 2008-2012
*
*
Fentress County 6,10 63.3 (45.8, 86.5) 9 2008-2012
*
*
Franklin County 6,10 58.6 (47.0, 72.6) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend -6.5 (-13.1, 0.7)
Gibson County 6,10 62.8 (51.5, 76.1) 22 2008-2012 stable stable trend 4.5 (-14.1, 27.2)
Giles County 6,10 53.5 (40.5, 69.8) 12 2008-2012
*
*
Grainger County 6,10 67.5 (50.7, 88.9) 11 2008-2012
*
*
Greene County 6,10 80.0 (69.1, 92.2) 40 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.4 (-26.7, 40.4)
Grundy County 6,10 87.5 (63.1, 119.4) 9 2008-2012
*
*
Hamblen County 6,10 70.8 (59.9, 83.2) 31 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.8 (-24.9, 23.1)
Hamilton County 6,10 54.7 (50.4, 59.2) 125 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.1 (-15.7, 11.5)
Hancock County 6,10 73.7 (44.1, 119.3) 4 2008-2012
*
*
Hardeman County 6,10 69.9 (53.0, 91.1) 12 2008-2012
*
*
Hardin County 6,10 58.0 (43.3, 76.5) 11 2008-2012
*
*
Hawkins County 6,10 78.1 (66.3, 91.7) 32 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.4 (-11.9, 12.6)
Haywood County 6,10 64.8 (46.2, 88.9) 8 2008-2012
*
*
Henderson County 6,10 73.5 (56.9, 93.8) 14 2008-2012
*
*
Henry County 6,10 69.0 (55.4, 85.4) 19 2008-2012 stable stable trend 5.7 (-16.5, 33.8)
Hickman County 6,10 69.6 (52.2, 91.4) 11 2008-2012
*
*
Houston County 6,10 66.8 (40.3, 106.1) 4 2008-2012
*
*
Humphreys County 6,10 84.4 (63.7, 110.7) 11 2008-2012
*
*
Jackson County 6,10 77.4 (52.6, 111.5) 7 2008-2012
*
*
Jefferson County 6,10 49.3 (39.5, 61.1) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend -6.9 (-21.8, 10.9)
Johnson County 6,10 58.7 (41.4, 82.2) 8 2008-2012
*
*
Knox County 6,10 64.4 (60.1, 68.9) 171 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.7, 0.6)
Lake County 6,10
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Lauderdale County 6,10 82.1 (63.2, 105.3) 13 2008-2012
*
*
Lawrence County 6,10 53.6 (42.4, 67.2) 16 2008-2012 stable stable trend -4.0 (-15.2, 8.6)
Lewis County 6,10 86.8 (61.0, 121.1) 8 2008-2012
*
*
Lincoln County 6,10 47.1 (35.8, 61.4) 12 2008-2012
*
*
Loudon County 6,10 59.6 (49.2, 71.9) 25 2008-2012 stable stable trend 5.8 (-13.4, 29.2)
Macon County 6,10 81.4 (61.4, 106.2) 11 2008-2012
*
*
Madison County 6,10 44.3 (37.0, 52.7) 26 2008-2012 stable stable trend 6.7 (-16.4, 36.0)
Marion County 6,10 78.4 (61.8, 98.6) 16 2008-2012 stable stable trend 14.0 (-21.8, 66.1)
Marshall County 6,10 58.8 (44.3, 76.7) 11 2008-2012
*
*
Maury County 6,10 63.8 (54.2, 74.8) 32 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.4 (-22.0, 31.7)
McMinn County 6,10 61.9 (51.1, 74.5) 24 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.6 (-14.4, 18.3)
McNairy County 6,10 64.5 (49.2, 83.7) 12 2008-2012
*
*
Meigs County 6,10 60.1 (39.1, 90.2) 5 2008-2012
*
*
Monroe County 6,10 71.8 (59.0, 86.8) 23 2008-2012 stable stable trend -5.3 (-37.3, 42.9)
Montgomery County 6,10 67.7 (59.2, 77.0) 47 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.9 (-11.3, 17.1)
Moore County 6,10 66.5 (37.5, 112.7) 3 2008-2012
*
*
Morgan County 6,10 66.4 (48.1, 90.0) 9 2008-2012
*
*
Obion County 6,10 56.8 (43.7, 73.1) 13 2008-2012
*
*
Overton County 6,10 58.1 (42.7, 77.9) 10 2008-2012
*
*
Perry County 6,10 80.0 (51.9, 121.1) 5 2008-2012
*
*
Pickett County 6,10
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Polk County 6,10 87.9 (66.1, 115.6) 11 2008-2012
*
*
Putnam County 6,10 53.2 (44.1, 63.9) 24 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.2 (-26.0, 38.3)
Rhea County 6,10 84.5 (67.7, 104.5) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend -5.7 (-26.5, 21.0)
Roane County 6,10 76.0 (64.6, 89.3) 32 2008-2012 stable stable trend 15.5 (-10.8, 49.5)
Robertson County 6,10 70.7 (59.0, 84.2) 26 2008-2012 stable stable trend 18.6 (-4.0, 46.4)
Rutherford County 6,10 60.3 (53.8, 67.3) 66 2008-2012 stable stable trend 4.6 (-11.4, 23.4)
Scott County 6,10 95.3 (73.2, 122.3) 13 2008-2012
*
*
Sequatchie County 6,10 81.4 (57.5, 112.9) 8 2008-2012
*
*
Sevier County 6,10 68.0 (59.0, 78.1) 42 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.5 (-8.9, 8.7)
Shelby County 6,10 52.4 (49.6, 55.4) 260 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.5 (-7.9, 5.3)
Smith County 6,10 70.5 (50.6, 96.1) 8 2008-2012
*
*
Stewart County 6,10 59.6 (39.4, 87.8) 6 2008-2012
*
*
Sullivan County 6,10 67.6 (61.2, 74.7) 83 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.0 (-12.6, 9.9)
Sumner County 6,10 53.8 (47.4, 61.0) 52 2008-2012 stable stable trend -4.2 (-14.3, 7.1)
Tipton County 6,10 72.5 (60.1, 86.8) 25 2008-2012 stable stable trend -4.3 (-12.0, 4.1)
Trousdale County 6,10 93.9 (58.5, 143.9) 4 2008-2012
*
*
Unicoi County 6,10 88.3 (67.4, 114.5) 13 2008-2012
*
*
Union County 6,10 78.8 (57.8, 105.3) 10 2008-2012
*
*
Van Buren County 6,10
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Warren County 6,10 69.1 (55.5, 85.4) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend 11.8 (-9.3, 37.9)
Washington County 6,10 53.8 (46.8, 61.6) 44 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.6 (-13.4, 7.3)
Wayne County 6,10 74.3 (52.5, 103.2) 8 2008-2012
*
*
Weakley County 6,10 61.6 (47.6, 78.6) 14 2008-2012
*
*
White County 6,10 61.6 (46.8, 80.3) 12 2008-2012
*
*
Williamson County 6,10 40.0 (34.1, 46.6) 34 2008-2012 stable stable trend -10.4 (-21.4, 2.1)
Wilson County 6,10 61.0 (52.7, 70.2) 41 2008-2012 stable stable trend 3.2 (-20.4, 33.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/03/2015 2:49 am.
Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.
State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
† 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 1969-2013 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.
§ The total count for the US (SEER+NPCR) may differ from the summation of the individual states reported in this table. The total uses data from the CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) January 2015 data submission for the following states: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New Jersey but data for those states when shown individually are sourced from the SEER November 2014 submission.
* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 cases were reported in a specific area-sex-race category.

1 Source: CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) November 2014 data submission and SEER November 2014 submission.
6 Source: State Cancer Registry and the CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) November 2014 data submission. State rates include rates from metropolitan areas funded by SEER.
10 Source: Incidence data provided by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). EAPCs calculated by the National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat. Rates 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 1969-2013 US Population Data File is used with NPCR November 2014 data.

Please note that the data comes from different sources. Due to different years of data availablility, 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.

Suppression is used to avoid misinterpretation when rates are unstable.

Return to Top