Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Tennessee by County

All Cancer Sites, 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages <50

Sorted by Recentaapc

County
sort alphabetically by name ascending 		2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
sort by rural urban descending 		Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
 Age-Adjusted Death Rate †
deaths 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 Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
sort by trend descending
Carroll County Rural Yes 21.0 (12.0, 34.1) 23 (2, 59) 3 falling falling trend -4.9 (-7.3, -3.2)
Hamblen County Urban Yes 17.0 (11.7, 23.9) 40 (8, 59) 6 falling falling trend -3.9 (-6.8, -1.6)
Cocke County Rural Yes 16.5 (9.6, 26.6) 46 (5, 59) 3 falling falling trend -3.3 (-6.0, -1.4)
Anderson County Urban Yes 15.7 (11.1, 21.7) 50 (14, 59) 7 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.6, -0.9)
Gibson County Urban Yes 22.6 (15.7, 31.6) 15 (3, 57) 6 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.5, 0.0)
Greene County Rural Yes 16.6 (11.5, 23.3) 45 (10, 59) 6 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.5, -0.7)
Davidson County Urban Yes 14.6 (13.0, 16.3) 54 (35, 58) 66 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.3, -1.7)
Blount County Urban Yes 15.6 (12.0, 20.0) 51 (19, 59) 12 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.4, -0.4)
Bradley County Urban Yes 16.6 (12.5, 21.6) 44 (14, 59) 11 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -1.0)
Hamilton County Urban Yes 15.8 (13.6, 18.4) 49 (25, 57) 35 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -1.2)
Lauderdale County Rural Yes 20.9 (11.9, 33.9) 24 (2, 59) 3 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.4, 0.1)
Lawrence County Rural Yes 20.0 (12.9, 29.4) 29 (4, 59) 5 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.4, 0.4)
Putnam County Rural Yes 15.5 (10.8, 21.5) 52 (13, 59) 7 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.7, -0.2)
Shelby County Urban Yes 17.7 (16.2, 19.4) 36 (22, 48) 98 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.2, -1.5)
Wilson County Urban Yes 14.6 (11.5, 18.3) 53 (24, 59) 14 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.2, -0.2)
Maury County Urban Yes 12.0 (8.5, 16.4) 58 (30, 59) 7 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.5, 0.2)
Knox County Urban Yes 14.4 (12.5, 16.5) 55 (34, 58) 42 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.2, -1.0)
Madison County Urban Yes 17.7 (13.1, 23.4) 37 (9, 58) 9 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.9, -0.2)
Rutherford County Urban Yes 13.9 (11.8, 16.2) 57 (35, 59) 32 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.8, -0.9)
Williamson County Urban Yes 10.5 (8.4, 12.9) 59 (50, 59) 18 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.5)
Bedford County Rural Yes 16.7 (10.9, 24.4) 42 (8, 59) 5 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.3, 0.9)
Carter County Urban Yes 16.9 (11.1, 24.6) 41 (8, 59) 5 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.8, 0.3)
Jefferson County Urban Yes 17.1 (11.2, 25.0) 39 (7, 59) 5 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.8, 0.3)
Loudon County Urban Yes 21.6 (14.6, 30.7) 20 (3, 58) 6 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.1, 0.7)
Campbell County Urban Yes 24.4 (16.1, 35.4) 8 (1, 57) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.0, 0.7)
Tipton County Urban Yes 16.5 (11.2, 23.4) 47 (9, 59) 6 stable stable trend -1.5 (-5.0, 1.4)
Washington County Urban Yes 14.3 (10.7, 18.6) 56 (23, 59) 11 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.8, 0.5)
Dyer County Rural Yes 16.6 (9.8, 26.2) 43 (6, 59) 3 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.0, 0.8)
Rhea County Rural Yes 20.9 (12.7, 32.3) 25 (2, 59) 4 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.7, 2.4)
Warren County Rural Yes 21.3 (14.0, 31.0) 22 (3, 58) 5 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.1, 0.1)
Montgomery County Urban Yes 16.3 (13.4, 19.5) 48 (21, 57) 23 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.3)
McMinn County Rural Yes 21.8 (15.0, 30.6) 18 (3, 57) 6 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.2, 1.0)
Marshall County Rural Yes 19.9 (12.3, 30.4) 30 (3, 59) 4 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.3, 1.6)
Roane County Urban Yes 18.0 (11.9, 26.2) 35 (7, 59) 5 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.7, 1.8)
Robertson County Urban Yes 19.3 (14.1, 25.8) 32 (6, 58) 9 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.1, 1.3)
Sumner County Urban Yes 17.3 (14.2, 20.9) 38 (16, 56) 22 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 1.0)
Cumberland County Rural Yes 20.2 (13.5, 29.1) 28 (4, 58) 5 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.3, 2.2)
Sullivan County Urban Yes 23.9 (19.7, 28.9) 9 (4, 37) 22 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.9, 0.8)
Claiborne County Rural Yes 22.9 (14.1, 35.0) 13 (1, 59) 4 stable stable trend -0.4 (-4.1, 2.9)
Hawkins County Urban Yes 22.6 (15.8, 31.4) 16 (3, 56) 7 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.4, 1.9)
Sevier County Rural Yes 22.8 (17.6, 29.1) 14 (4, 49) 13 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.7, 1.3)
Henderson County Rural Yes 33.2 (21.9, 48.2) 4 (1, 48) 5 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.1, 3.0)
Lincoln County Rural Yes 23.4 (14.8, 35.0) 12 (2, 58) 4 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.7, 3.3)
Coffee County Rural Yes 23.8 (17.1, 32.3) 10 (2, 53) 8 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.1, 3.2)
Overton County Rural Yes 34.7 (21.9, 52.2) 3 (1, 48) 4 stable stable trend 0.5 (-3.6, 4.8)
Cheatham County Urban Yes 19.3 (12.5, 28.6) 31 (3, 59) 5 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.4, 3.6)
Dickson County Urban Yes 22.2 (15.7, 30.5) 17 (3, 57) 7 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.1, 2.5)
Hardin County Rural Yes 26.6 (16.2, 41.2) 7 (1, 58) 4 stable stable trend 0.7 (-2.2, 3.5)
Monroe County Rural Yes 23.7 (15.8, 33.9) 11 (2, 57) 5 stable stable trend 0.7 (-2.3, 3.7)
Johnson County Rural Yes 32.5 (19.1, 52.2) 5 (1, 57) 3 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.3, 4.3)
Morgan County Urban Yes 28.9 (17.4, 45.4) 6 (1, 57) 3 stable stable trend 1.6 (-2.2, 5.7)
Benton County Rural Yes 41.1 (24.3, 65.2) 1 (1, 47) 3 stable stable trend 2.1 (-0.1, 4.5)
Fayette County Urban Yes 20.8 (13.3, 31.0) 26 (3, 59) 4
*
*
Franklin County Rural Yes 19.0 (12.0, 28.5) 33 (4, 59) 4
*
*
Giles County Rural Yes 21.7 (12.8, 34.3) 19 (2, 59) 3
*
*
Hickman County Urban Yes 37.6 (25.4, 53.8) 2 (1, 30) 6
*
*
Macon County Urban Yes 21.4 (12.2, 34.7) 21 (1, 59) 3
*
*
Obion County Rural Yes 20.6 (12.2, 32.6) 27 (2, 59) 3
*
*
Weakley County Rural Yes 18.8 (10.7, 30.3) 34 (3, 59) 3
*
*
Bledsoe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cannon County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chester County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Crockett County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
DeKalb County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Decatur County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Fentress County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grainger County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grundy County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hancock County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hardeman County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Haywood County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Henry County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Houston County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Humphreys County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lewis County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Marion County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McNairy County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Meigs County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Moore County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perry County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pickett County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Scott County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sequatchie County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Smith County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stewart County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Trousdale County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Unicoi County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Union County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Van Buren County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wayne County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
White County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/21/2026 12:38 pm.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.

† Death data provided by the National Vital Statistics System public use data file. Death rates calculated by the National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat. Death rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI.

The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.

⋔ 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.

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.

Φ Rural–urban county classifications are based on the 2023 USDA Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (except for Connecticut Counties which use 2013 codes). State-level cancer rates for rural areas are calculated using cancer cases registered exclusively in rural counties, while state-level cancer rates for urban areas are calculated using cases registered exclusively in urban counties.

* 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).

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top