Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Alabama by County

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages <65

Sorted by Recentaapc
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
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 ascending
Alabama Yes 58.8 (57.9, 59.8) N/A 3,201 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.4, -1.3)
United States Yes 47.3 (47.2, 47.4) N/A 168,038 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Barbour County Yes 74.4 (60.3, 91.1) 16 (1, 57) 21 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.0, 3.7)
Clay County Yes 72.7 (54.4, 96.1) 20 (1, 65) 12 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.2, 1.9)
Escambia County Yes 86.5 (73.8, 100.9) 3 (1, 30) 36 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.8)
Marengo County Yes 79.9 (62.9, 100.4) 10 (1, 55) 17 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 0.9)
Covington County Yes 80.7 (68.8, 94.3) 8 (1, 38) 37 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.5)
Cleburne County Yes 61.7 (46.0, 81.8) 39 (3, 67) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.0)
Coosa County Yes 65.8 (45.2, 93.6) 33 (1, 67) 8 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.8)
Jackson County Yes 80.4 (70.0, 92.1) 9 (1, 33) 48 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Wilcox County Yes 91.2 (66.8, 122.2) 1 (1, 57) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.1, 1.4)
Lawrence County Yes 67.0 (55.7, 80.1) 27 (5, 60) 27 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.1)
Pike County Yes 82.1 (67.5, 99.1) 7 (1, 42) 24 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.5)
Tallapoosa County Yes 68.2 (57.2, 81.0) 25 (4, 57) 32 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Blount County Yes 66.7 (57.8, 76.8) 28 (7, 56) 43 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Dallas County Yes 77.7 (65.6, 91.6) 11 (1, 45) 33 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Fayette County Yes 77.1 (59.6, 98.7) 12 (1, 59) 15 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.4)
Marion County Yes 68.6 (56.2, 83.1) 24 (3, 61) 23 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.1)
Perry County Yes 83.8 (57.7, 118.2) 6 (1, 64) 8 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.7)
Walker County Yes 74.7 (65.8, 84.6) 15 (3, 41) 56 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Geneva County Yes 63.5 (51.0, 78.4) 37 (6, 66) 20 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Lamar County Yes 73.0 (54.4, 96.7) 18 (1, 65) 11 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.5)
Morgan County Yes 60.1 (54.1, 66.6) 42 (22, 59) 81 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Chilton County Yes 57.6 (48.3, 68.2) 50 (17, 66) 29 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.1)
Randolph County Yes 66.2 (51.9, 83.6) 31 (3, 65) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.3)
Sumter County Yes 85.1 (60.9, 115.8) 5 (1, 64) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.7)
Etowah County Yes 65.9 (59.2, 73.2) 32 (12, 51) 76 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Talladega County Yes 67.3 (59.8, 75.6) 26 (9, 51) 64 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Clarke County Yes 72.4 (58.3, 89.4) 22 (2, 60) 20 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.1)
Colbert County Yes 69.4 (60.1, 79.8) 23 (6, 52) 45 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Henry County Yes 73.0 (56.4, 93.5) 19 (1, 63) 15 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.0)
Limestone County Yes 52.6 (46.6, 59.2) 58 (35, 66) 59 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.5)
Lowndes County Yes 75.4 (52.5, 105.4) 13 (1, 66) 8 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.3)
Monroe County Yes 54.6 (41.3, 71.1) 54 (12, 67) 13 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.9, 0.0)
Washington County Yes 62.5 (46.9, 82.2) 38 (3, 66) 12 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.4, 0.3)
Crenshaw County Yes 86.2 (66.0, 111.2) 4 (1, 52) 14 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.4, 0.3)
Marshall County Yes 60.5 (53.7, 67.9) 41 (20, 60) 63 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.6)
Butler County Yes 58.4 (44.3, 75.9) 45 (7, 66) 13 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.3, 0.0)
Calhoun County Yes 65.3 (59.0, 72.3) 34 (13, 51) 85 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Conecuh County Yes 75.0 (55.2, 100.4) 14 (1, 65) 11 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.2)
Cullman County Yes 60.9 (53.7, 68.9) 40 (16, 61) 56 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Mobile County Yes 66.3 (62.9, 69.9) 30 (16, 42) 301 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
Greene County Yes 64.1 (43.0, 93.6) 36 (1, 67) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.1)
Hale County Yes 73.4 (55.4, 95.8) 17 (1, 65) 13 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.6, -0.1)
Lauderdale County Yes 54.7 (48.2, 61.9) 53 (29, 65) 57 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.8)
Baldwin County Yes 49.8 (45.8, 54.0) 63 (48, 66) 127 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Chambers County Yes 64.4 (53.0, 77.6) 35 (7, 64) 26 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.6)
Coffee County Yes 57.8 (49.1, 67.7) 48 (17, 65) 33 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.7)
DeKalb County Yes 51.0 (43.9, 58.9) 60 (35, 66) 40 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Winston County Yes 55.1 (43.0, 70.0) 52 (12, 67) 16 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Bibb County Yes 72.6 (57.8, 90.5) 21 (1, 62) 17 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.6)
Houston County Yes 53.2 (47.2, 59.9) 56 (32, 66) 61 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
Jefferson County Yes 58.0 (55.5, 60.7) 47 (34, 55) 419 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Lee County Yes 49.9 (44.9, 55.3) 62 (43, 66) 77 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0)
Macon County Yes 89.3 (70.0, 112.6) 2 (1, 44) 17 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.7)
Madison County Yes 47.3 (44.3, 50.5) 65 (54, 66) 199 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.4)
Russell County Yes 66.4 (57.5, 76.3) 29 (9, 56) 43 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.1)
Choctaw County Yes 53.3 (38.1, 73.7) 55 (9, 67) 9 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.6)
Dale County Yes 52.9 (44.4, 62.7) 57 (25, 66) 29 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.2)
Franklin County Yes 57.6 (46.2, 71.1) 49 (13, 66) 19 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -0.9)
St. Clair County Yes 59.8 (53.1, 67.2) 43 (20, 61) 61 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.2)
Elmore County Yes 59.4 (52.3, 67.2) 44 (20, 62) 54 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -1.2)
Tuscaloosa County Yes 50.3 (45.9, 55.0) 61 (45, 66) 102 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.4)
Montgomery County Yes 56.0 (51.7, 60.6) 51 (34, 61) 133 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.6)
Shelby County Yes 36.9 (33.5, 40.7) 67 (64, 67) 89 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.4)
Autauga County Yes 52.3 (44.4, 61.4) 59 (28, 66) 32 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.9, -1.4)
Bullock County Yes 40.5 (24.8, 63.1) 66 (19, 67) 4 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.3, -0.5)
Pickens County Yes 48.2 (36.3, 63.3) 64 (22, 67) 12 falling falling trend -5.0 (-7.5, -2.5)
Cherokee County Yes 58.0 (46.2, 72.5) 46 (10, 66) 19 falling falling trend -13.0 (-20.5, -4.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 01/29/2023 8:15 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.

† 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 (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). The Healthy People 2030 goals are based on rates adjusted using different methods but the differences should be minimal. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI.
The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.
‡ 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.
⋔ 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.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.



Please note that the data comes 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 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.

Data for 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