Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Tennessee by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

White Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Name
County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
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
Tennessee N/A No 167.9 (166.6, 169.3) N/A 12,199 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
United States 6 N/A No 151.3 (151.1, 151.5) N/A 463,400 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Anderson County Urban No 169.4 (158.2, 181.1) 70 (44, 87) 182 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.4)
Bedford County Rural No 189.2 (172.2, 207.5) 50 (7, 78) 96 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Benton County Rural No 215.7 (189.0, 245.6) 6 (1, 64) 53 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.9)
Bledsoe County Rural No 132.3 (110.8, 157.6) 94 (69, 95) 28 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.5)
Blount County Urban No 158.0 (150.0, 166.4) 82 (67, 90) 307 falling falling trend -1.4 (-3.7, -1.0)
Bradley County Urban No 172.4 (162.3, 183.1) 68 (44, 84) 224 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.5)
Campbell County Urban No 195.7 (179.3, 213.4) 35 (5, 72) 112 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3)
Cannon County Urban No 196.4 (167.9, 228.6) 34 (1, 85) 36 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.6)
Carroll County Rural No 210.4 (189.7, 233.1) 11 (1, 63) 79 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.4)
Carter County Urban No 163.2 (151.2, 176.0) 79 (50, 90) 145 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.7, -1.1)
Cheatham County Urban No 200.7 (181.9, 221.0) 23 (3, 70) 93 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
Chester County Urban No 219.2 (190.2, 251.6) 4 (1, 67) 43 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.2, 1.5)
Claiborne County Rural No 199.4 (180.4, 219.9) 26 (2, 71) 88 falling falling trend -1.3 (-7.0, -0.6)
Clay County Rural No 208.0 (173.1, 249.4) 12 (1, 86) 27 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.5)
Cocke County Rural No 195.5 (178.6, 213.9) 36 (5, 71) 105 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Coffee County Rural No 183.5 (169.4, 198.5) 57 (15, 80) 131 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Crockett County Urban No 224.6 (191.5, 262.4) 3 (1, 69) 35 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.1, 1.4)
Cumberland County Rural No 163.3 (152.2, 175.2) 78 (54, 90) 198 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Davidson County Urban No 143.7 (138.9, 148.6) 91 (85, 94) 707 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.3, -2.5)
DeKalb County Rural No 197.6 (174.1, 223.8) 29 (2, 77) 54 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Decatur County Rural No 190.4 (161.8, 223.5) 47 (1, 91) 34 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Dickson County Urban No 199.7 (183.9, 216.4) 24 (4, 67) 126 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.1)
Dyer County Rural No 188.1 (170.0, 207.9) 52 (7, 81) 82 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.3)
Fayette County Urban No 144.7 (129.3, 161.9) 90 (69, 95) 72 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.4)
Fentress County Rural No 190.6 (167.5, 216.3) 46 (3, 84) 55 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Franklin County Rural No 156.0 (141.5, 171.7) 83 (56, 94) 91 falling falling trend -1.2 (-3.0, -0.8)
Gibson County Urban No 211.8 (194.8, 230.0) 10 (2, 54) 118 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Giles County Rural No 169.0 (150.7, 189.2) 71 (21, 93) 66 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Grainger County Urban No 188.8 (168.1, 211.7) 51 (5, 83) 65 falling falling trend -1.6 (-6.8, -0.6)
Greene County Rural No 185.6 (173.8, 198.1) 54 (19, 74) 196 falling falling trend -1.4 (-4.3, -0.7)
Grundy County Rural No 197.0 (169.3, 228.4) 31 (1, 86) 39 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.5, 1.4)
Hamblen County Urban No 180.2 (167.1, 194.3) 62 (20, 82) 145 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Hamilton County Urban No 145.2 (139.8, 150.8) 89 (82, 94) 579 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.5)
Hancock County Rural No 195.5 (157.6, 241.1) 37 (1, 93) 20 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.0)
Hardeman County Rural No 207.9 (181.8, 237.5) 13 (1, 77) 48 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.7)
Hardin County Rural No 163.3 (145.5, 183.1) 77 (33, 94) 67 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Hawkins County Urban No 189.3 (175.9, 203.5) 49 (13, 72) 160 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.3, 0.5)
Haywood County Rural No 183.3 (151.5, 221.4) 58 (2, 94) 25 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Henderson County Rural No 203.6 (182.5, 226.8) 20 (1, 70) 71 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.5)
Henry County Rural No 188.0 (170.7, 206.9) 53 (8, 81) 93 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.1)
Hickman County Urban No 218.6 (195.2, 244.2) 5 (1, 61) 68 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.6)
Houston County Rural No 229.5 (191.4, 274.1) 2 (1, 73) 27 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.4, 1.3)
Humphreys County Rural No 192.2 (169.0, 218.0) 44 (3, 83) 52 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Jackson County Rural No 193.4 (165.2, 226.0) 41 (1, 89) 37 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.4)
Jefferson County Urban No 165.9 (153.1, 179.5) 73 (46, 90) 133 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Johnson County Rural No 203.8 (180.2, 230.2) 18 (1, 78) 58 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 1.0)
Knox County Urban No 153.9 (149.1, 158.9) 85 (76, 90) 800 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -1.4)
Lake County Rural No 214.0 (167.2, 272.0) 8 (1, 92) 15 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Lauderdale County Rural No 205.6 (179.7, 234.7) 17 (1, 75) 47 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.2)
Lawrence County Rural No 184.9 (169.1, 201.8) 55 (14, 81) 105 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Lewis County Rural No 206.5 (177.0, 240.1) 16 (1, 79) 38 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Lincoln County Rural No 176.9 (159.8, 195.6) 66 (19, 88) 83 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Loudon County Urban No 151.5 (139.6, 164.3) 88 (68, 94) 143 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.8)
Macon County Urban No 199.6 (176.8, 224.7) 25 (2, 78) 59 falling falling trend -1.6 (-6.5, -0.6)
Madison County Urban No 158.4 (146.5, 171.1) 81 (59, 93) 142 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
Marion County Urban No 182.1 (163.3, 202.8) 60 (11, 87) 73 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Marshall County Rural No 197.2 (177.3, 218.8) 30 (3, 75) 76 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.2)
Maury County Urban No 155.7 (145.1, 166.9) 84 (65, 93) 170 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.6)
McMinn County Rural No 194.7 (180.3, 210.1) 40 (6, 69) 144 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.7, 0.0)
McNairy County Rural No 191.2 (171.2, 213.3) 45 (5, 83) 70 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.3)
Meigs County Rural No 199.4 (169.7, 233.4) 27 (1, 86) 35 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.6, 1.5)
Monroe County Rural No 196.6 (180.9, 213.4) 32 (5, 69) 129 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.1)
Montgomery County Urban No 176.4 (166.0, 187.2) 67 (36, 80) 228 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.9, -0.7)
Moore County Rural No 133.2 (100.9, 174.1) 93 (31, 95) 12 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.3)
Morgan County Urban No 194.9 (171.5, 221.0) 39 (2, 81) 53 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Obion County Rural No 183.1 (164.7, 203.4) 59 (9, 85) 76 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.2)
Overton County Rural No 243.2 (218.5, 270.1) 1 (1, 25) 77 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.7)
Perry County Rural No 159.6 (129.1, 196.2) 80 (10, 95) 20 falling falling trend -14.7 (-32.2, -1.1)
Pickett County Rural No 171.9 (133.3, 221.3) 69 (2, 95) 16 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.7)
Polk County Urban No 206.9 (182.0, 234.7) 14 (1, 76) 53 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
Putnam County Rural No 190.2 (177.5, 203.6) 48 (12, 69) 174 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Rhea County Rural No 206.7 (187.4, 227.6) 15 (2, 67) 89 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.1)
Roane County Urban No 164.7 (152.2, 178.1) 75 (48, 90) 140 falling falling trend -2.4 (-8.4, -1.1)
Robertson County Urban No 179.0 (165.5, 193.4) 65 (19, 82) 138 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Rutherford County Urban No 165.6 (158.3, 173.1) 74 (59, 85) 408 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Scott County Rural No 193.0 (170.3, 218.0) 42 (3, 83) 54 falling falling trend -13.7 (-21.2, -6.1)
Sequatchie County Urban No 153.1 (130.1, 179.6) 87 (34, 95) 35 falling falling trend -5.3 (-14.3, -1.7)
Sevier County Rural No 180.6 (170.2, 191.5) 61 (28, 78) 245 falling falling trend -5.3 (-9.1, -0.6)
Shelby County Urban No 143.5 (138.7, 148.4) 92 (84, 94) 718 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.5, -1.8)
Smith County Urban No 198.4 (173.5, 226.1) 28 (1, 83) 49 falling falling trend -1.8 (-10.7, -0.2)
Stewart County Urban No 201.2 (172.7, 233.7) 22 (1, 83) 38 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.9)
Sullivan County Urban No 179.3 (171.5, 187.3) 64 (36, 74) 430 falling falling trend -1.1 (-3.1, -0.7)
Sumner County Urban No 164.2 (156.6, 172.2) 76 (60, 86) 357 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Tipton County Urban No 192.6 (176.6, 209.7) 43 (6, 74) 112 falling falling trend -0.6 (-2.3, -0.2)
Trousdale County Urban No 212.3 (172.4, 258.7) 9 (1, 87) 21 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.8)
Unicoi County Urban No 195.2 (172.3, 220.9) 38 (2, 81) 56 stable stable trend -0.4 (-4.5, 0.1)
Union County Urban No 196.5 (172.9, 222.8) 33 (2, 82) 53 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Van Buren County Rural No 214.4 (174.2, 262.8) 7 (1, 87) 22 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.3)
Warren County Rural No 203.8 (186.1, 222.9) 19 (3, 65) 102 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.4)
Washington County Urban No 168.6 (159.8, 177.9) 72 (50, 85) 289 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Wayne County Rural No 201.7 (175.9, 230.9) 21 (1, 79) 46 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.7)
Weakley County Rural No 184.0 (165.5, 204.3) 56 (10, 87) 76 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.2)
White County Rural No 180.1 (161.5, 200.6) 63 (12, 88) 71 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Williamson County Urban Yes 120.7 (114.5, 127.2) 95 (92, 95) 294 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.4)
Wilson County Urban No 153.9 (145.2, 163.0) 86 (70, 93) 247 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.9, -1.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/08/2024 7:59 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.
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 - 2022) and has been excluded from the calculation of the United States recent trend. This was based on the NCHS Policy.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.


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.

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