Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Tennessee by County

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by Rate
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 ascending
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
Tennessee Yes 59.3 (58.5, 60.1) N/A 4,435 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)
Benton County Yes 94.7 (74.6, 119.3) 1 (1, 56) 17 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.2)
Overton County Yes 88.9 (72.6, 108.2) 2 (1, 58) 23 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.0)
Grundy County Yes 88.8 (67.7, 115.1) 3 (1, 84) 13 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.6, 2.2)
Meigs County Yes 88.1 (67.4, 114.2) 4 (1, 81) 13 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.7, 2.1)
Hancock County Yes 86.3 (59.1, 123.8) 5 (1, 93) 7
*
*
Campbell County Yes 85.9 (74.1, 99.2) 6 (1, 45) 41 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Houston County Yes 84.6 (59.5, 118.0) 7 (1, 92) 8 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.4, 1.9)
Dyer County Yes 83.4 (71.0, 97.6) 8 (1, 54) 34 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.5)
Monroe County Yes 82.8 (71.5, 95.5) 9 (1, 50) 43 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.3)
Scott County Yes 81.8 (66.6, 99.9) 10 (1, 74) 21 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.5)
Lauderdale County Yes 80.8 (66.7, 97.3) 11 (1, 72) 24 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.6)
Henderson County Yes 80.5 (66.5, 96.8) 12 (1, 69) 25 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.2)
Crockett County Yes 80.3 (60.4, 104.9) 13 (1, 91) 12 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.0)
Hickman County Yes 79.6 (65.3, 96.4) 14 (1, 73) 23 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 0.9)
Johnson County Yes 79.3 (62.9, 99.5) 15 (1, 80) 18 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.0)
Morgan County Yes 79.2 (63.9, 97.6) 16 (1, 78) 20 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 0.2)
Macon County Yes 79.2 (64.4, 96.5) 17 (1, 77) 21 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Unicoi County Yes 76.5 (59.8, 97.0) 18 (1, 88) 17 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.6, 3.5)
Perry County Yes 76.4 (51.9, 109.7) 19 (1, 94) 7 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 1.1)
Dickson County Yes 75.2 (65.4, 86.1) 20 (3, 70) 46 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Stewart County Yes 75.1 (56.9, 98.3) 21 (1, 92) 13 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.3)
Polk County Yes 74.9 (58.4, 95.2) 22 (1, 90) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Chester County Yes 74.2 (57.1, 95.2) 23 (1, 92) 14 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.7, 1.0)
McNairy County Yes 73.4 (59.6, 89.8) 24 (1, 85) 22 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.3)
Cocke County Yes 73.4 (62.2, 86.3) 25 (3, 77) 34 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Hardin County Yes 72.9 (59.5, 88.8) 26 (2, 84) 23 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.7)
Carroll County Yes 72.5 (59.5, 87.8) 27 (2, 87) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.4)
Coffee County Yes 71.9 (62.3, 82.7) 28 (5, 76) 43 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
White County Yes 71.9 (59.1, 87.0) 29 (2, 86) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Claiborne County Yes 71.8 (59.3, 86.3) 30 (3, 87) 26 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.1)
Grainger County Yes 71.7 (57.9, 88.3) 31 (2, 88) 21 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.8, 1.4)
Lewis County Yes 71.6 (51.9, 97.1) 32 (1, 94) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.7)
Cheatham County Yes 71.2 (60.6, 83.2) 33 (5, 83) 35 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
DeKalb County Yes 70.9 (56.2, 88.8) 34 (1, 91) 17 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.7)
Fentress County Yes 70.9 (55.0, 90.5) 35 (1, 92) 15 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Hawkins County Yes 70.7 (61.4, 81.2) 36 (6, 77) 47 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.2)
Greene County Yes 70.4 (62.2, 79.6) 37 (8, 72) 58 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.4)
Cannon County Yes 70.2 (51.9, 93.3) 38 (1, 93) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.9)
Bedford County Yes 69.9 (59.8, 81.4) 39 (6, 83) 36 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Hardeman County Yes 68.4 (54.8, 84.6) 40 (3, 92) 19 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.6)
Marion County Yes 68.0 (55.9, 82.3) 41 (5, 90) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.2)
Sevier County Yes 67.8 (60.9, 75.4) 42 (13, 76) 78 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Weakley County Yes 67.5 (55.4, 81.7) 43 (4, 91) 23 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.4)
Gibson County Yes 67.4 (57.8, 78.4) 44 (9, 86) 37 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Sullivan County Yes 67.1 (61.6, 73.0) 45 (20, 70) 124 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
Haywood County Yes 66.6 (51.1, 86.0) 46 (2, 94) 14 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Franklin County Yes 66.6 (56.0, 78.9) 47 (8, 90) 31 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.9, 0.0)
Lawrence County Yes 66.4 (56.2, 78.0) 48 (8, 88) 32 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Wayne County Yes 65.2 (49.9, 84.5) 49 (3, 94) 13 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Henry County Yes 65.1 (53.8, 78.4) 50 (8, 92) 26 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
Rhea County Yes 64.5 (53.3, 77.7) 51 (9, 92) 24 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)
Humphreys County Yes 64.3 (50.0, 82.1) 52 (5, 94) 15 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.4)
Union County Yes 63.9 (49.8, 81.3) 53 (4, 94) 15 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.2)
Van Buren County Yes 63.2 (39.3, 99.2) 54 (1, 95) 5 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.8, 1.9)
Madison County Yes 62.9 (56.1, 70.4) 55 (23, 86) 69 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
McMinn County Yes 62.8 (53.9, 73.0) 56 (18, 91) 39 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
Smith County Yes 62.5 (48.2, 80.0) 57 (7, 94) 14 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.4)
Warren County Yes 62.1 (51.8, 74.0) 58 (16, 92) 28 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Hamblen County Yes 62.0 (53.8, 71.2) 59 (20, 91) 44 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.7)
Robertson County Yes 61.8 (54.2, 70.3) 60 (23, 89) 51 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
Cumberland County Yes 61.5 (52.6, 71.6) 61 (19, 92) 42 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Decatur County Yes 61.5 (43.2, 85.8) 62 (2, 94) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.5)
Trousdale County Yes 61.3 (42.1, 87.0) 63 (2, 95) 7 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.6, -0.3)
Obion County Yes 60.9 (49.5, 74.4) 64 (12, 93) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
Tipton County Yes 60.5 (52.4, 69.6) 65 (22, 91) 43 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.2)
Carter County Yes 60.4 (52.0, 69.9) 66 (21, 91) 41 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -1.0)
Roane County Yes 60.1 (51.7, 69.6) 67 (23, 92) 43 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.8)
Washington County Yes 60.0 (54.2, 66.3) 68 (33, 88) 86 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Maury County Yes 59.9 (53.4, 67.2) 69 (31, 90) 66 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.7)
Jackson County Yes 59.8 (43.7, 81.6) 70 (4, 94) 10 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.2)
Marshall County Yes 59.6 (49.1, 71.8) 71 (18, 94) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Pickett County Yes 59.3 (32.3, 102.8) 72 (1, 95) 3
*
*
Lincoln County Yes 58.7 (48.2, 70.9) 73 (17, 94) 25 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Bradley County Yes 58.6 (52.4, 65.4) 74 (36, 90) 69 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.2)
Jefferson County Yes 58.5 (50.0, 68.1) 75 (27, 93) 38 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Shelby County Yes 58.3 (56.1, 60.5) 76 (55, 81) 576 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Montgomery County Yes 57.8 (52.9, 63.1) 77 (46, 89) 104 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.1)
Giles County Yes 56.6 (45.6, 69.8) 78 (21, 94) 21 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.2)
Anderson County Yes 56.5 (49.3, 64.5) 79 (35, 93) 50 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.4)
Clay County Yes 56.5 (37.0, 85.1) 80 (3, 95) 6 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.1, 0.1)
Putnam County Yes 55.5 (48.3, 63.6) 81 (37, 94) 45 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.9)
Sequatchie County Yes 54.8 (39.1, 75.2) 82 (8, 95) 9 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 0.9)
Knox County Yes 54.5 (51.6, 57.6) 83 (62, 90) 271 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Davidson County Yes 54.3 (51.8, 56.9) 84 (66, 90) 375 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.7)
Sumner County Yes 53.9 (49.5, 58.7) 85 (57, 92) 114 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.7)
Moore County Yes 53.8 (31.0, 88.4) 86 (1, 95) 4
*
*
Fayette County Yes 53.2 (43.9, 64.2) 87 (35, 94) 27 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.6)
Blount County Yes 52.6 (47.4, 58.3) 88 (57, 94) 82 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Hamilton County Yes 51.4 (48.2, 54.8) 89 (72, 93) 210 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.6)
Loudon County Yes 50.5 (42.2, 60.2) 90 (46, 94) 31 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.1)
Rutherford County Yes 50.3 (46.9, 54.0) 91 (73, 94) 159 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.8)
Wilson County Yes 46.7 (42.0, 51.9) 92 (76, 94) 75 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.4)
Lake County Yes 45.8 (27.8, 73.6) 93 (14, 95) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.3, -0.6)
Bledsoe County Yes 45.8 (33.4, 62.6) 94 (38, 95) 9 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.5)
Williamson County Yes 32.2 (29.2, 35.6) 95 (92, 95) 85 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.0, -2.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 02/08/2023 10:07 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.

* 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).


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