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 Rate
County
sort sort alphabetically by nameascending
Annual Incidence Rate
over rate period
(95% Confidence Interval)

sort sort by rateascending
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)
Scott County 6,10 95.3 (73.2, 122.3) 13 2008-2012 * *
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 * *
Polk County 6,10 87.9 (66.1, 115.6) 11 2008-2012 * *
Grundy County 6,10 87.5 (63.1, 119.4) 9 2008-2012 * *
Lewis County 6,10 86.8 (61.0, 121.1) 8 2008-2012 * *
Rhea County 6,10 84.5 (67.7, 104.5) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend -5.7 (-26.5, 21.0)
Humphreys County 6,10 84.4 (63.7, 110.7) 11 2008-2012 * *
Lauderdale County 6,10 82.1 (63.2, 105.3) 13 2008-2012 * *
Campbell County 6,10 82.0 (67.9, 98.6) 25 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.7 (-24.6, 25.5)
Macon County 6,10 81.4 (61.4, 106.2) 11 2008-2012 * *
Sequatchie County 6,10 81.4 (57.5, 112.9) 8 2008-2012 * *
Dickson County 6,10 81.4 (67.5, 97.4) 25 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.4 (-24.6, 29.0)
Perry County 6,10 80.0 (51.9, 121.1) 5 2008-2012 * *
Greene County 6,10 80.0 (69.1, 92.2) 40 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.4 (-26.7, 40.4)
Benton County 6,10 79.3 (58.5, 106.2) 10 2008-2012 * *
Union County 6,10 78.8 (57.8, 105.3) 10 2008-2012 * *
Marion County 6,10 78.4 (61.8, 98.6) 16 2008-2012 stable stable trend 14.0 (-21.8, 66.1)
Cheatham County 6,10 78.3 (61.8, 97.9) 16 2008-2012 stable stable trend 6.9 (-5.3, 20.7)
Hawkins County 6,10 78.1 (66.3, 91.7) 32 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.4 (-11.9, 12.6)
Jackson County 6,10 77.4 (52.6, 111.5) 7 2008-2012 * *
Roane County 6,10 76.0 (64.6, 89.3) 32 2008-2012 stable stable trend 15.5 (-10.8, 49.5)
Coffee County 6,10 75.8 (63.4, 90.1) 27 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.8 (-18.1, 17.8)
Cocke County 6,10 75.6 (61.2, 92.7) 20 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.8 (-12.2, 18.1)
Wayne County 6,10 74.3 (52.5, 103.2) 8 2008-2012 * *
Hancock County 6,10 73.7 (44.1, 119.3) 4 2008-2012 * *
Henderson County 6,10 73.5 (56.9, 93.8) 14 2008-2012 * *
Tipton County 6,10 72.5 (60.1, 86.8) 25 2008-2012 stable stable trend -4.3 (-12.0, 4.1)
Carter County 6,10 71.8 (60.7, 84.7) 31 2008-2012 stable stable trend -6.2 (-24.8, 16.9)
Monroe County 6,10 71.8 (59.0, 86.8) 23 2008-2012 stable stable trend -5.3 (-37.3, 42.9)
Claiborne County 6,10 71.4 (56.6, 89.4) 17 2008-2012 stable stable trend 8.8 (-9.6, 31.0)
Hamblen County 6,10 70.8 (59.9, 83.2) 31 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.8 (-24.9, 23.1)
Robertson County 6,10 70.7 (59.0, 84.2) 26 2008-2012 stable stable trend 18.6 (-4.0, 46.4)
Smith County 6,10 70.5 (50.6, 96.1) 8 2008-2012 * *
Hardeman County 6,10 69.9 (53.0, 91.1) 12 2008-2012 * *
Hickman County 6,10 69.6 (52.2, 91.4) 11 2008-2012 * *
Warren County 6,10 69.1 (55.5, 85.4) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend 11.8 (-9.3, 37.9)
Henry County 6,10 69.0 (55.4, 85.4) 19 2008-2012 stable stable trend 5.7 (-16.5, 33.8)
Blount County 6,10 68.6 (60.8, 77.1) 59 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.8 (-7.4, 6.3)
Sevier County 6,10 68.0 (59.0, 78.1) 42 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.5 (-8.9, 8.7)
Montgomery County 6,10 67.7 (59.2, 77.0) 47 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.9 (-11.3, 17.1)
Sullivan County 6,10 67.6 (61.2, 74.7) 83 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.0 (-12.6, 9.9)
Grainger County 6,10 67.5 (50.7, 88.9) 11 2008-2012 * *
Houston County 6,10 66.8 (40.3, 106.1) 4 2008-2012 * *
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 * *
Anderson County 6,10 64.9 (55.7, 75.4) 37 2008-2012 stable stable trend -8.2 (-18.4, 3.2)
Haywood County 6,10 64.8 (46.2, 88.9) 8 2008-2012 * *
McNairy County 6,10 64.5 (49.2, 83.7) 12 2008-2012 * *
Knox County 6,10 64.4 (60.1, 68.9) 171 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.7, 0.6)
Bledsoe County 6,10 63.9 (41.2, 96.0) 5 2008-2012 * *
Maury County 6,10 63.8 (54.2, 74.8) 32 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.4 (-22.0, 31.7)
Fentress County 6,10 63.3 (45.8, 86.5) 9 2008-2012 * *
Decatur County 6,10 63.3 (41.4, 94.2) 6 2008-2012 * *
Bradley County 6,10 63.1 (54.7, 72.6) 41 2008-2012 stable stable trend 4.9 (-15.4, 30.1)
Gibson County 6,10 62.8 (51.5, 76.1) 22 2008-2012 stable stable trend 4.5 (-14.1, 27.2)
McMinn County 6,10 61.9 (51.1, 74.5) 24 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.6 (-14.4, 18.3)
Cumberland County 6,10 61.7 (52.1, 72.9) 33 2008-2012 stable stable trend -12.1 (-26.9, 5.7)
White County 6,10 61.6 (46.8, 80.3) 12 2008-2012 * *
Weakley County 6,10 61.6 (47.6, 78.6) 14 2008-2012 * *
Wilson County 6,10 61.0 (52.7, 70.2) 41 2008-2012 stable stable trend 3.2 (-20.4, 33.9)
Bedford County 6,10 60.3 (47.6, 75.5) 16 2008-2012 stable stable trend 10.5 (-5.6, 29.3)
Rutherford County 6,10 60.3 (53.8, 67.3) 66 2008-2012 stable stable trend 4.6 (-11.4, 23.4)
Meigs County 6,10 60.1 (39.1, 90.2) 5 2008-2012 * *
Stewart County 6,10 59.6 (39.4, 87.8) 6 2008-2012 * *
Dyer County 6,10 59.6 (46.9, 74.9) 15 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.9 (-4.3, 2.7)
Loudon County 6,10 59.6 (49.2, 71.9) 25 2008-2012 stable stable trend 5.8 (-13.4, 29.2)
Davidson County 6,10 59.2 (55.5, 63.1) 195 2008-2012 falling falling trend -3.1 (-6.0, -0.1)
Marshall County 6,10 58.8 (44.3, 76.7) 11 2008-2012 * *
Johnson County 6,10 58.7 (41.4, 82.2) 8 2008-2012 * *
Franklin County 6,10 58.6 (47.0, 72.6) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend -6.5 (-13.1, 0.7)
Carroll County 6,10 58.3 (44.8, 75.2) 13 2008-2012 * *
Overton County 6,10 58.1 (42.7, 77.9) 10 2008-2012 * *
Hardin County 6,10 58.0 (43.3, 76.5) 11 2008-2012 * *
DeKalb County 6,10 56.9 (39.3, 80.2) 7 2008-2012 * *
Obion County 6,10 56.8 (43.7, 73.1) 13 2008-2012 * *
Hamilton County 6,10 54.7 (50.4, 59.2) 125 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.1 (-15.7, 11.5)
Fayette County 6,10 54.2 (42.2, 69.0) 14 2008-2012 * *
Sumner County 6,10 53.8 (47.4, 61.0) 52 2008-2012 stable stable trend -4.2 (-14.3, 7.1)
Washington County 6,10 53.8 (46.8, 61.6) 44 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.6 (-13.4, 7.3)
Lawrence County 6,10 53.6 (42.4, 67.2) 16 2008-2012 stable stable trend -4.0 (-15.2, 8.6)
Giles County 6,10 53.5 (40.5, 69.8) 12 2008-2012 * *
Putnam County 6,10 53.2 (44.1, 63.9) 24 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.2 (-26.0, 38.3)
Shelby County 6,10 52.4 (49.6, 55.4) 260 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.5 (-7.9, 5.3)
Clay County 6,10 51.0 (29.3, 86.2) 3 2008-2012 * *
Cannon County 6,10 49.9 (31.8, 75.8) 5 2008-2012 * *
Jefferson County 6,10 49.3 (39.5, 61.1) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend -6.9 (-21.8, 10.9)
Chester County 6,10 47.3 (30.6, 70.3) 5 2008-2012 * *
Lincoln County 6,10 47.1 (35.8, 61.4) 12 2008-2012 * *
Madison County 6,10 44.3 (37.0, 52.7) 26 2008-2012 stable stable trend 6.7 (-16.4, 36.0)
Williamson County 6,10 40.0 (34.1, 46.6) 34 2008-2012 stable stable trend -10.4 (-21.4, 2.1)
Crockett County 6,10 34.4 (19.7, 56.5) 3 2008-2012 * *
Lake County 6,10
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Pickett County 6,10
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Van Buren County 6,10
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 07/31/2015 5:21 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