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 50+

Sorted by CI*Rank
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 descending
Alabama No 555.7 (550.8, 560.7) N/A 9,895 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
United States No 501.7 (501.1, 502.3) N/A 569,776 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.8)
Wilcox County No 691.1 (583.5, 813.1) 1 (1, 53) 30 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 0.9)
Walker County No 687.8 (642.5, 735.5) 2 (1, 19) 177 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.1)
Crenshaw County No 683.9 (589.6, 789.2) 3 (1, 50) 39 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.4)
Russell County No 680.6 (627.1, 737.3) 4 (1, 26) 125 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2)
Escambia County No 653.9 (595.3, 716.8) 5 (1, 39) 93 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.6)
Lowndes County No 650.1 (543.4, 771.6) 6 (1, 63) 27 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Macon County No 645.2 (566.3, 732.3) 7 (1, 54) 50 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Covington County No 644.1 (590.2, 701.6) 8 (1, 39) 107 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Dallas County No 641.6 (584.2, 703.2) 9 (1, 41) 95 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Bullock County No 641.4 (528.6, 771.0) 10 (1, 65) 23 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.6)
Barbour County No 637.6 (568.6, 712.7) 11 (1, 50) 64 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Jackson County No 633.1 (585.9, 683.0) 12 (1, 41) 138 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.3)
Talladega County No 629.9 (590.4, 671.4) 13 (2, 36) 196 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.4)
Fayette County No 629.6 (549.2, 718.5) 14 (1, 58) 45 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.2)
Sumter County No 629.0 (530.6, 740.3) 15 (1, 64) 30 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.4)
Geneva County No 623.5 (559.6, 692.6) 16 (1, 54) 71 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Blount County No 622.8 (576.9, 671.4) 17 (2, 44) 139 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Clarke County No 616.7 (550.2, 689.0) 18 (1, 55) 63 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
Lawrence County No 614.8 (555.6, 678.5) 19 (1, 53) 81 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Lamar County No 606.3 (521.7, 700.8) 20 (1, 64) 38 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.1)
Calhoun County No 606.2 (573.2, 640.6) 21 (7, 42) 260 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Marion County No 602.5 (544.5, 665.0) 22 (2, 56) 80 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.3)
Chambers County No 602.3 (545.2, 663.7) 23 (3, 57) 83 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Marengo County No 602.0 (527.6, 684.1) 24 (1, 62) 48 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Bibb County No 601.9 (527.3, 684.1) 25 (1, 62) 48 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Colbert County No 588.4 (544.6, 634.7) 26 (6, 52) 136 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Clay County No 587.4 (502.2, 682.9) 27 (1, 66) 34 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Tallapoosa County No 586.8 (537.1, 639.8) 28 (6, 57) 106 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
St. Clair County No 586.5 (548.7, 626.3) 29 (8, 51) 186 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.1)
Pike County No 584.2 (520.4, 653.7) 30 (3, 63) 62 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.6)
Dale County No 584.0 (534.4, 637.0) 31 (6, 58) 104 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.6)
Etowah County No 583.3 (550.3, 617.7) 32 (11, 51) 240 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.7)
Mobile County No 576.7 (559.1, 594.7) 33 (19, 45) 841 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.4)
Lee County No 574.3 (541.3, 608.7) 34 (14, 52) 239 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.5)
Henry County No 569.2 (495.8, 650.6) 35 (2, 66) 45 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.0)
Franklin County No 567.4 (506.4, 633.8) 36 (6, 65) 64 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Morgan County No 566.6 (535.5, 599.0) 37 (17, 54) 253 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3)
Elmore County No 566.0 (526.0, 608.3) 38 (14, 60) 154 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.7)
Conecuh County No 564.5 (480.0, 659.8) 39 (2, 67) 33 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.7)
Cherokee County No 562.3 (503.7, 625.9) 40 (6, 65) 69 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Jefferson County No 559.5 (545.6, 573.7) 41 (27, 49) 1,276 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Chilton County No 558.6 (507.4, 613.7) 42 (10, 65) 90 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Perry County No 553.3 (449.5, 674.1) 43 (1, 67) 21 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.6)
Marshall County No 550.3 (516.0, 586.4) 44 (20, 61) 194 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.2, -1.0)
Montgomery County No 542.1 (518.2, 566.7) 45 (29, 59) 401 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Cleburne County No 537.0 (457.4, 626.6) 46 (4, 67) 33 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.4)
Coffee County No 535.4 (489.4, 584.7) 47 (18, 66) 101 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.6)
Cullman County No 528.6 (493.4, 565.7) 48 (27, 65) 172 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
DeKalb County No 528.3 (489.1, 569.7) 49 (25, 65) 138 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.8, -0.7)
Butler County No 526.6 (458.6, 601.9) 50 (11, 67) 44 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Washington County No 524.2 (448.7, 608.8) 51 (8, 67) 35 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Greene County No 523.3 (424.4, 638.8) 52 (2, 67) 20 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.4)
Lauderdale County No 522.1 (490.1, 555.7) 53 (32, 65) 202 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.8, -1.3)
Monroe County No 521.7 (456.9, 593.1) 54 (11, 67) 48 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.4)
Winston County No 520.6 (461.2, 585.6) 55 (16, 67) 57 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
Baldwin County No 520.2 (499.2, 541.9) 56 (39, 64) 476 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
Hale County No 519.4 (440.7, 608.2) 57 (9, 67) 32 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.4)
Randolph County No 510.1 (449.1, 577.0) 58 (18, 67) 52 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
Houston County No 508.4 (477.3, 541.0) 59 (38, 66) 203 falling falling trend -4.0 (-6.5, -1.4)
Autauga County No 505.7 (460.9, 553.6) 60 (29, 67) 96 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.2)
Madison County No 504.1 (486.3, 522.4) 61 (47, 65) 622 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.4)
Pickens County No 495.9 (429.6, 569.5) 62 (19, 67) 41 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.5, -1.6)
Limestone County No 494.9 (460.9, 530.7) 63 (42, 66) 163 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.1, -1.4)
Tuscaloosa County No 494.9 (469.6, 521.1) 64 (47, 66) 300 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.7)
Coosa County No 489.7 (408.7, 582.2) 65 (13, 67) 26 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Choctaw County No 463.1 (389.4, 546.8) 66 (25, 67) 28 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.1)
Shelby County No 432.3 (410.6, 454.9) 67 (64, 67) 307 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.1)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/26/2022 12:09 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.

† 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.



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