Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Tennessee by County

All Cancer Sites, 2014-2018

White Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
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 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 *** 176.8 (175.4, 178.3) N/A 12,036 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.6)
United States 6 *** 160.2 (160.0, 160.4) N/A 465,913 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
Perry County *** 247.9 (207.3, 295.0) 1 (1, 57) 28 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.8, 1.6)
Overton County *** 242.9 (218.1, 270.0) 2 (1, 31) 74 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.6)
Trousdale County *** 242.5 (196.9, 295.5) 3 (1, 77) 21 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.0)
Carroll County *** 242.2 (219.8, 266.6) 4 (1, 28) 89 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.6)
Benton County *** 240.2 (213.0, 270.5) 5 (1, 39) 61 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.1)
Grundy County *** 240.1 (208.6, 275.4) 6 (1, 47) 45 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.1, 1.7)
Scott County *** 237.8 (212.1, 265.9) 7 (1, 39) 65 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Houston County *** 226.1 (186.6, 272.4) 8 (1, 85) 25 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.2)
Macon County *** 223.8 (199.1, 251.0) 9 (1, 57) 62 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.3)
Lauderdale County *** 222.7 (195.3, 253.2) 10 (1, 64) 50 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Hancock County *** 222.3 (179.7, 273.1) 11 (1, 91) 21 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.2)
Meigs County *** 218.6 (186.6, 255.1) 12 (1, 77) 36 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.5, 1.7)
Johnson County *** 218.0 (193.0, 245.9) 13 (1, 68) 58 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.5, 1.2)
Fentress County *** 217.0 (191.4, 245.6) 14 (1, 68) 56 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.3)
Stewart County *** 216.0 (186.3, 249.8) 15 (1, 80) 40 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.7, 1.4)
Claiborne County *** 215.1 (195.4, 236.5) 16 (2, 58) 92 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Dickson County *** 213.3 (196.6, 231.1) 17 (4, 55) 125 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.1)
Monroe County *** 213.2 (196.6, 231.0) 18 (4, 54) 132 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Grainger County *** 212.8 (189.9, 238.0) 19 (2, 67) 68 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.6)
McNairy County *** 212.7 (191.1, 236.2) 20 (2, 67) 75 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.5)
Rhea County *** 212.1 (192.5, 233.4) 21 (3, 63) 90 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
White County *** 208.2 (187.6, 230.7) 22 (3, 69) 77 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Campbell County *** 208.1 (191.5, 225.9) 23 (5, 61) 121 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.2)
Wayne County *** 207.3 (181.3, 236.4) 24 (2, 84) 48 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.7)
Cheatham County *** 207.2 (187.5, 228.5) 25 (4, 68) 89 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.0)
Tipton County *** 207.0 (190.0, 225.2) 26 (5, 63) 114 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Lawrence County *** 206.6 (189.8, 224.5) 27 (6, 63) 115 stable stable trend 2.6 (-0.5, 5.9)
Henderson County *** 206.1 (184.5, 229.7) 28 (4, 74) 70 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Polk County *** 204.8 (179.7, 233.0) 29 (3, 81) 50 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Unicoi County *** 204.3 (180.6, 230.9) 30 (3, 80) 58 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.8)
Lake County *** 202.3 (158.3, 256.8) 31 (1, 94) 15 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.8)
Union County *** 201.4 (176.3, 229.4) 32 (4, 85) 49 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.2)
Bedford County *** 199.1 (181.1, 218.4) 33 (8, 76) 94 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.3)
Hickman County *** 198.4 (176.0, 223.1) 34 (5, 86) 59 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.3)
Decatur County *** 198.3 (169.6, 231.3) 35 (3, 92) 36 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
Hardeman County *** 196.9 (170.7, 226.7) 36 (4, 90) 44 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.6)
Dyer County *** 196.9 (178.1, 217.4) 37 (8, 81) 83 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Hardin County *** 196.6 (176.4, 218.7) 38 (8, 85) 75 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.7)
Warren County *** 195.7 (178.2, 214.6) 39 (10, 78) 96 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.4)
Cocke County *** 195.3 (177.8, 214.2) 40 (10, 78) 98 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Hawkins County *** 194.5 (180.6, 209.3) 41 (13, 72) 154 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.6)
Coffee County *** 194.2 (179.2, 210.2) 42 (13, 78) 129 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Putnam County *** 193.2 (180.2, 207.0) 43 (16, 71) 170 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.1)
Cannon County *** 192.4 (164.6, 224.0) 44 (5, 92) 35 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Obion County *** 192.0 (172.7, 213.1) 45 (10, 85) 77 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.4)
Marion County *** 191.7 (172.2, 213.2) 46 (11, 86) 74 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Montgomery County *** 189.2 (177.8, 201.1) 47 (23, 73) 215 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.2)
Henry County *** 189.1 (171.6, 208.3) 48 (13, 86) 91 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.1)
Sevier County *** 189.1 (178.2, 200.6) 49 (23, 75) 238 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.7, -0.1)
Morgan County *** 188.2 (165.2, 213.8) 50 (8, 92) 51 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.6, -0.1)
McMinn County *** 185.9 (171.7, 201.1) 51 (22, 83) 132 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.1)
Maury County *** 184.9 (172.4, 198.1) 52 (24, 82) 173 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Van Buren County *** 184.7 (144.5, 234.4) 53 (1, 95) 16 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.8)
Greene County *** 184.2 (172.1, 196.9) 54 (26, 82) 184 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.5, -0.9)
Robertson County *** 183.9 (169.6, 199.1) 55 (24, 86) 130 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Haywood County *** 183.7 (151.9, 221.7) 56 (4, 94) 25 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Gibson County *** 183.2 (167.5, 200.3) 57 (21, 89) 102 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.3, -0.9)
Humphreys County *** 183.0 (160.3, 208.6) 58 (11, 93) 48 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.2)
Lewis County *** 182.6 (154.1, 215.5) 59 (7, 93) 31 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Marshall County *** 182.6 (162.8, 204.2) 60 (17, 92) 65 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Weakley County *** 181.1 (162.6, 201.4) 61 (16, 92) 74 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.2)
Lincoln County *** 180.6 (162.8, 200.1) 62 (18, 92) 79 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.3)
Franklin County *** 180.6 (164.4, 198.1) 63 (25, 91) 98 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Sullivan County *** 179.9 (172.1, 188.0) 64 (41, 79) 424 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.8)
Roane County *** 179.9 (166.9, 193.9) 65 (30, 88) 150 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Hamblen County *** 178.1 (165.0, 192.2) 66 (31, 89) 141 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.3)
Washington County *** 177.4 (168.0, 187.2) 67 (42, 85) 280 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.8)
DeKalb County *** 177.1 (154.1, 203.0) 68 (15, 93) 45 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
Bradley County *** 176.8 (166.3, 187.9) 69 (40, 87) 216 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Smith County *** 175.9 (152.0, 202.8) 70 (15, 93) 41 stable stable trend 4.9 (-9.5, 21.5)
Crockett County *** 175.7 (147.5, 208.5) 71 (10, 94) 29 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.4, 1.1)
Pickett County *** 175.7 (136.8, 224.9) 72 (2, 95) 16 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 0.9)
Chester County *** 175.0 (149.6, 204.0) 73 (13, 94) 35 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.9)
Jackson County *** 175.0 (148.0, 206.4) 74 (11, 94) 33 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.3)
Sequatchie County *** 171.0 (145.4, 200.2) 75 (15, 94) 34 falling falling trend -18.0 (-31.6, -1.7)
Jefferson County *** 170.2 (156.7, 184.8) 76 (39, 93) 123 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Rutherford County *** 169.3 (161.5, 177.5) 77 (55, 90) 367 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -1.0)
Sumner County *** 168.3 (160.0, 176.8) 78 (55, 91) 328 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Giles County *** 167.2 (148.6, 187.8) 79 (31, 94) 62 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.2)
Knox County *** 167.0 (161.8, 172.4) 80 (66, 89) 808 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Loudon County *** 166.8 (154.0, 180.7) 81 (46, 93) 143 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.8)
Madison County *** 166.5 (154.3, 179.6) 82 (50, 93) 145 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.5)
Clay County *** 166.3 (135.5, 203.7) 83 (11, 95) 21 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.2)
Davidson County *** 166.2 (160.9, 171.7) 84 (65, 90) 778 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.7, -1.7)
Anderson County *** 164.1 (153.0, 175.9) 85 (55, 93) 172 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.4)
Blount County *** 163.7 (155.1, 172.6) 86 (63, 93) 287 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Bledsoe County *** 163.6 (138.4, 192.7) 87 (23, 95) 31 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Carter County *** 161.6 (149.4, 174.7) 88 (55, 93) 136 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.1, -1.0)
Cumberland County *** 160.6 (149.2, 172.9) 89 (60, 94) 173 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Hamilton County *** 158.3 (152.5, 164.2) 90 (76, 93) 596 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.4)
Shelby County *** 156.9 (151.9, 162.1) 91 (79, 93) 784 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Wilson County *** 156.6 (147.2, 166.5) 92 (71, 94) 218 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.4)
Moore County *** 134.4 (102.0, 175.5) 93 (40, 95) 12 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.1)
Fayette County *** 133.9 (118.5, 151.0) 94 (84, 95) 60 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.7, -0.9)
Williamson County *** 124.9 (117.9, 132.3) 95 (92, 95) 252 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 04/20/2021 3:28 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 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