Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Tennessee by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

Black Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
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 179.2 (175.5, 183.0) N/A 1,952 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.9, -2.4)
United States 6 N/A No 168.6 (168.1, 169.2) N/A 70,631 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.1, -2.0)
Putnam County Rural No 276.2 (155.6, 445.7) 1 (1, 40) 3
*
*
Anderson County Urban No 263.2 (186.8, 359.4) 2 (1, 33) 8 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.5)
Obion County Rural No 255.9 (178.5, 354.2) 3 (1, 36) 8 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 1.0)
Lauderdale County Rural No 251.1 (197.8, 313.5) 4 (1, 26) 18 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Gibson County Urban No 248.9 (206.3, 297.9) 5 (1, 20) 26 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.7)
Robertson County Urban No 244.6 (183.2, 319.0) 6 (1, 32) 13 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.1)
Dyer County Rural No 236.6 (177.2, 308.8) 7 (1, 34) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.2, 0.7)
McNairy County Rural No 226.8 (137.8, 352.3) 8 (1, 41) 4 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.1, 0.7)
Henry County Rural No 216.0 (148.3, 305.8) 9 (1, 39) 7 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.1, 0.0)
Tipton County Urban No 212.9 (173.0, 258.9) 10 (2, 33) 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Hardeman County Rural No 206.2 (167.1, 251.5) 11 (2, 35) 21 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)
Haywood County Rural No 203.7 (166.4, 247.3) 12 (3, 34) 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Maury County Urban No 201.6 (166.2, 242.2) 13 (3, 33) 25 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.7)
Hamblen County Urban No 197.5 (130.6, 287.0) 14 (1, 41) 6 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.9, 1.8)
Weakley County Rural No 197.2 (119.4, 304.9) 15 (1, 41) 4
*
*
Bedford County Rural No 197.1 (137.1, 273.4) 16 (1, 40) 8 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.5, -0.7)
Henderson County Rural No 192.3 (122.4, 288.0) 17 (1, 41) 5 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.8, -0.1)
Giles County Rural No 191.5 (137.7, 262.0) 18 (2, 40) 9 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.7, 1.0)
Dickson County Urban No 190.5 (117.4, 291.5) 19 (1, 41) 5
*
*
Montgomery County Urban No 190.2 (166.0, 216.6) 20 (7, 33) 56 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.2)
Crockett County Urban No 188.1 (115.0, 292.3) 21 (1, 41) 5
*
*
Shelby County Urban No 185.5 (179.8, 191.4) 22 (13, 27) 874 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.8, -2.7)
Davidson County Urban No 176.9 (167.5, 186.6) 23 (15, 32) 300 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.4, -2.2)
Madison County Urban No 176.8 (156.9, 198.6) 24 (11, 35) 64 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -0.9)
Knox County Urban No 176.2 (157.3, 196.7) 25 (11, 35) 70 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.0)
Fayette County Urban No 173.2 (142.5, 208.9) 26 (8, 39) 25 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.3)
Hamilton County Urban No 168.1 (154.8, 182.3) 27 (17, 36) 129 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.7)
Washington County Urban No 164.6 (117.1, 224.1) 28 (5, 41) 9 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.4)
Blount County Urban No 163.8 (113.5, 228.7) 29 (4, 41) 7 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.3, -1.1)
Williamson County Urban No 163.0 (127.2, 205.3) 30 (9, 40) 16 stable stable trend 17.1 (-0.3, 32.3)
Carroll County Rural No 160.9 (101.9, 241.8) 31 (3, 41) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 0.3)
Sumner County Urban No 155.9 (125.9, 190.6) 32 (12, 40) 21 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.3)
Bradley County Urban No 155.9 (109.6, 214.4) 33 (6, 41) 8 stable stable trend 2.6 (-2.6, 29.5)
McMinn County Rural No 154.4 (93.9, 241.1) 34 (3, 41) 4 falling falling trend -5.4 (-27.8, -2.3)
Coffee County Rural No 149.7 (83.6, 245.3) 35 (2, 41) 3
*
*
Lincoln County Rural No 147.7 (89.1, 230.8) 36 (4, 41) 4 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.0, 0.3)
Rutherford County Urban No 147.0 (125.8, 170.2) 37 (21, 40) 47 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.9, -1.5)
Sullivan County Urban No 143.0 (93.6, 208.9) 38 (8, 41) 6 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.9, -1.0)
Franklin County Rural No 135.4 (82.3, 212.8) 39 (6, 41) 4 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.7, -0.2)
Roane County Urban No 130.8 (77.0, 215.4) 40 (7, 41) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.5, -0.4)
Wilson County Urban Yes 114.4 (85.8, 149.2) 41 (28, 41) 12 falling falling trend -11.3 (-27.6, -2.8)
Benton County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bledsoe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Campbell County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cannon County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Carter County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cheatham County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chester County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Claiborne County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cocke County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cumberland County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
DeKalb County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Decatur County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Fentress County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grainger County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grundy County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hancock County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hardin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hawkins County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hickman County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Houston County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Humphreys County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jefferson County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Johnson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lawrence County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lewis County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Loudon County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Macon County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Marion County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Marshall County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Meigs County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Monroe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Moore County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Morgan County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Overton County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perry County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pickett County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Rhea County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Scott County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sequatchie County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sevier County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Smith County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stewart County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Trousdale County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Unicoi County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Union County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Van Buren County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Warren County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wayne County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
White County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/06/2024 3:02 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.

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.

* 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.

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