Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Alabama by County

All Cancer Sites, 2014-2018

White Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
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 *** 172.8 (171.0, 174.5) N/A 7,925 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.1)
United States 6 *** 160.2 (160.0, 160.4) N/A 465,913 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
Walker County *** 213.3 (199.2, 228.2) 1 (1, 18) 179 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.1)
Crenshaw County *** 210.8 (177.9, 248.8) 2 (1, 55) 31 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.6)
Fayette County *** 209.3 (182.3, 239.7) 3 (1, 50) 45 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.5)
Jackson County *** 205.7 (190.4, 222.1) 4 (1, 28) 141 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.1)
Escambia County *** 204.3 (183.1, 227.6) 5 (1, 42) 71 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
Lawrence County *** 202.9 (182.3, 225.4) 6 (1, 44) 75 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Geneva County *** 200.9 (179.8, 224.2) 7 (1, 49) 69 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.5)
Macon County *** 200.7 (148.4, 270.3) 8 (1, 67) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.7)
Chambers County *** 199.8 (177.5, 224.5) 9 (1, 52) 63 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.1)
Barbour County *** 199.4 (172.0, 230.9) 10 (1, 60) 41 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.3)
Dallas County *** 199.2 (171.7, 231.0) 11 (1, 59) 42 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Perry County *** 195.5 (141.1, 270.6) 12 (1, 67) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.7)
Russell County *** 195.5 (175.4, 217.4) 13 (1, 51) 72 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Washington County *** 195.2 (164.9, 230.2) 14 (1, 62) 31 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Talladega County *** 190.3 (176.5, 205.2) 15 (3, 45) 148 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.2)
Bullock County *** 189.3 (135.2, 268.5) 16 (1, 67) 8 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.6)
Calhoun County *** 187.9 (176.9, 199.5) 17 (6, 44) 227 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.7)
Marion County *** 186.9 (168.7, 206.9) 18 (3, 58) 81 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Etowah County *** 185.8 (174.8, 197.4) 19 (8, 47) 224 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.2)
Bibb County *** 185.2 (160.1, 213.4) 20 (1, 62) 41 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.0)
Lamar County *** 185.2 (158.2, 216.2) 21 (1, 63) 36 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.4)
Cherokee County *** 185.1 (165.4, 206.8) 22 (3, 60) 70 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Marshall County *** 184.5 (173.2, 196.4) 23 (8, 48) 208 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.2)
Henry County *** 183.7 (156.7, 214.8) 24 (1, 64) 36 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
Franklin County *** 183.6 (163.8, 205.4) 25 (3, 60) 65 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Colbert County *** 182.9 (168.3, 198.6) 26 (4, 55) 121 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.4)
Blount County *** 182.8 (168.9, 197.7) 27 (6, 55) 132 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Lowndes County *** 182.7 (129.8, 256.5) 28 (1, 67) 9 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.3, 1.7)
Covington County *** 182.2 (165.3, 200.6) 29 (4, 59) 91 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.2)
St. Clair County *** 181.8 (169.8, 194.6) 30 (8, 52) 177 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.8)
Randolph County *** 180.3 (157.1, 206.4) 31 (2, 63) 48 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
Lee County *** 179.5 (168.0, 191.6) 32 (11, 56) 188 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Pike County *** 179.1 (155.3, 206.0) 33 (2, 64) 43 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.1)
Coffee County *** 179.1 (162.9, 196.7) 34 (7, 60) 92 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Wilcox County *** 179.0 (129.8, 246.7) 35 (1, 67) 11 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.7)
Mobile County *** 178.8 (172.2, 185.5) 36 (17, 47) 588 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Dale County *** 177.8 (161.4, 195.7) 37 (5, 61) 88 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.5)
Monroe County *** 177.8 (151.8, 207.9) 38 (2, 65) 36 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
Clay County *** 176.7 (149.3, 208.6) 39 (2, 65) 31 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.7)
Marengo County *** 176.2 (145.7, 212.2) 40 (1, 66) 26 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Cullman County *** 175.2 (163.9, 187.1) 41 (13, 57) 187 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.3)
Morgan County *** 173.0 (163.0, 183.6) 42 (17, 59) 231 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.0)
Elmore County *** 171.8 (158.6, 185.8) 43 (14, 61) 132 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.6)
Coosa County *** 171.2 (138.5, 211.2) 44 (1, 67) 21 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.7)
Houston County *** 169.2 (158.0, 181.1) 45 (19, 62) 177 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
Jefferson County *** 169.2 (163.9, 174.6) 46 (31, 56) 823 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.1, -0.8)
Tallapoosa County *** 169.1 (151.7, 188.2) 47 (10, 64) 78 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.3)
Greene County *** 168.9 (113.6, 264.7) 48 (1, 67) 6 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.1, 1.6)
Conecuh County *** 167.8 (135.1, 208.2) 49 (2, 67) 20 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.6)
Chilton County *** 167.8 (151.5, 185.5) 50 (14, 64) 81 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Winston County *** 165.5 (146.7, 186.3) 51 (12, 65) 59 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Baldwin County *** 164.9 (157.9, 172.1) 52 (34, 61) 444 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8)
DeKalb County *** 164.6 (152.2, 177.7) 53 (22, 64) 139 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.4, 5.3)
Autauga County *** 162.8 (147.5, 179.3) 54 (18, 65) 86 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -1.0)
Montgomery County *** 162.5 (152.6, 172.9) 55 (31, 64) 217 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.9)
Madison County *** 161.5 (155.3, 168.0) 56 (39, 62) 517 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Lauderdale County *** 161.3 (151.1, 172.1) 57 (32, 64) 194 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.7, -0.4)
Clarke County *** 157.6 (134.7, 184.2) 58 (13, 67) 35 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.4)
Limestone County *** 156.6 (145.2, 168.7) 59 (35, 65) 145 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.8, -1.1)
Cleburne County *** 155.6 (131.7, 183.0) 60 (14, 67) 31 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.0)
Butler County *** 155.6 (130.2, 185.6) 61 (9, 67) 29 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Tuscaloosa County *** 155.6 (146.6, 165.0) 62 (42, 65) 233 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Hale County *** 153.7 (119.4, 196.4) 63 (4, 67) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.5)
Pickens County *** 142.4 (118.7, 170.5) 64 (25, 67) 26 falling falling trend -4.8 (-6.5, -3.1)
Choctaw County *** 131.9 (104.7, 165.6) 65 (25, 67) 17 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.4, -0.8)
Shelby County *** 130.4 (123.4, 137.8) 66 (61, 67) 269 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
Sumter County *** 127.3 (82.9, 191.9) 67 (3, 67) 7 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 05/08/2021 1:20 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 2020 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 1969-2017 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.

*** No Healthy People 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

6 Hispanic mortality recent trend data for the United States has been excluded for the following states: Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma. The data on Hispanic and non-Hispanic mortality for these states may be unreliable for the time period used in the generation of the recent trend (1990 - 2018) and has been excluded from the calculation of the United States recent trend. This was based on the NCHS Policy.


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