Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Tennessee by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

All Races (includes 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 166.3 (165.1, 167.6) N/A 14,413 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.5)
United States N/A No 146.0 (145.8, 146.2) N/A 602,955 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.4)
Overton County Rural No 237.8 (213.8, 264.0) 1 (1, 26) 77 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.6)
Houston County Rural No 218.4 (182.4, 260.4) 2 (1, 80) 27 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.5, 1.1)
Gibson County Urban No 215.8 (200.1, 232.4) 3 (1, 39) 146 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Hickman County Urban No 213.4 (191.1, 237.8) 4 (1, 61) 70 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Lauderdale County Rural No 211.6 (188.9, 236.5) 5 (1, 61) 66 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
Chester County Urban No 211.5 (184.7, 241.4) 6 (1, 68) 47 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.5, 1.2)
Benton County Rural No 210.3 (184.6, 239.0) 7 (1, 70) 54 stable stable trend -8.5 (-18.1, 0.2)
Van Buren County Rural No 209.6 (170.5, 256.6) 8 (1, 91) 22 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 1.2)
Crockett County Urban No 208.5 (179.7, 241.0) 9 (1, 73) 40 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.5, 1.0)
Polk County Urban No 204.1 (179.8, 231.2) 10 (1, 72) 54 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Hardeman County Rural No 203.9 (182.8, 227.0) 11 (1, 69) 70 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.2)
Carroll County Rural No 203.6 (184.1, 224.8) 12 (1, 67) 84 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.0)
Lewis County Rural No 203.6 (174.9, 236.2) 13 (1, 82) 39 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.2)
Trousdale County Urban No 203.4 (167.2, 245.0) 14 (1, 90) 23 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.7)
Johnson County Rural No 201.1 (177.9, 226.9) 15 (1, 75) 59 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.8)
Rhea County Rural No 201.0 (182.4, 221.0) 16 (1, 67) 91 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
Clay County Rural No 199.7 (166.4, 239.3) 17 (1, 90) 27 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.2)
Henderson County Rural No 199.2 (179.2, 220.9) 18 (1, 71) 76 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Cheatham County Urban No 199.1 (180.9, 218.8) 19 (2, 67) 97 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Hancock County Rural No 197.6 (159.8, 242.9) 20 (1, 92) 21 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.0)
Macon County Urban No 196.5 (174.3, 220.8) 21 (1, 76) 60 falling falling trend -1.6 (-5.8, -0.7)
Dickson County Urban No 195.8 (180.8, 211.9) 22 (4, 66) 132 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.8, -0.1)
Smith County Urban No 195.8 (171.7, 222.6) 23 (1, 82) 51 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.5)
Union County Urban No 195.7 (172.3, 221.8) 24 (1, 80) 54 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Meigs County Rural No 195.7 (166.9, 228.6) 25 (1, 90) 36 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.5)
Warren County Rural No 195.5 (178.8, 213.4) 26 (3, 69) 105 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Stewart County Urban No 195.1 (167.9, 225.9) 27 (1, 86) 39 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.8)
Claiborne County Rural No 194.7 (176.3, 214.6) 28 (3, 72) 88 falling falling trend -1.4 (-6.8, -0.6)
Cannon County Urban No 194.5 (166.9, 225.9) 29 (1, 87) 37 stable stable trend -11.6 (-21.6, 0.1)
Lake County Rural No 194.4 (154.5, 242.4) 30 (1, 94) 17 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Wayne County Rural No 194.0 (169.4, 221.6) 31 (1, 83) 46 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.6)
Tipton County Urban No 193.2 (178.5, 208.7) 32 (5, 69) 136 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.1)
Campbell County Urban No 193.1 (177.0, 210.4) 33 (4, 72) 113 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.3)
Humphreys County Rural No 192.9 (170.3, 218.2) 34 (2, 82) 55 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
DeKalb County Rural No 192.9 (170.3, 218.0) 35 (2, 81) 55 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Unicoi County Urban No 192.2 (169.8, 217.3) 36 (2, 83) 57 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.3)
McNairy County Rural No 191.9 (172.4, 213.2) 37 (3, 78) 75 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.1)
Grundy County Rural No 191.7 (164.9, 222.2) 38 (1, 87) 39 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.3)
Cocke County Rural No 191.7 (175.1, 209.5) 39 (4, 74) 107 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Dyer County Rural No 190.9 (173.7, 209.4) 40 (4, 74) 94 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.2)
Monroe County Rural No 190.2 (175.3, 206.2) 41 (7, 70) 132 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Scott County Rural No 189.8 (167.5, 214.4) 42 (2, 84) 54 falling falling trend -13.9 (-20.9, -6.9)
McMinn County Rural No 189.3 (175.6, 203.9) 43 (7, 70) 149 falling falling trend -0.8 (-3.6, -0.3)
Morgan County Urban No 189.2 (166.6, 214.3) 44 (2, 85) 53 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Jackson County Rural No 189.1 (161.7, 220.8) 45 (1, 89) 37 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.3)
Fentress County Rural No 188.2 (165.7, 213.5) 46 (2, 84) 55 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Haywood County Rural No 188.0 (164.2, 214.7) 47 (2, 88) 48 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Hawkins County Urban No 186.7 (173.6, 200.6) 48 (10, 73) 163 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.3)
Decatur County Rural No 186.5 (158.8, 218.5) 49 (1, 91) 35 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
Marshall County Rural No 186.5 (168.2, 206.4) 50 (5, 82) 80 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Putnam County Rural No 186.1 (173.9, 199.0) 51 (13, 72) 179 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Henry County Rural No 186.0 (169.5, 203.9) 52 (7, 81) 100 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Grainger County Urban No 185.0 (164.8, 207.2) 53 (5, 85) 66 falling falling trend -1.7 (-8.8, -0.5)
Bedford County Rural No 184.3 (168.6, 201.2) 54 (10, 80) 106 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Obion County Rural No 183.6 (166.2, 202.6) 55 (8, 83) 85 falling falling trend -1.0 (-5.1, -0.5)
Weakley County Rural No 183.4 (165.5, 202.9) 56 (7, 84) 81 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.0)
Lawrence County Rural No 183.0 (167.6, 199.5) 57 (11, 80) 108 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Greene County Rural No 181.6 (170.2, 193.7) 58 (18, 74) 199 falling falling trend -1.6 (-4.9, -0.8)
Coffee County Rural No 179.4 (166.0, 193.8) 59 (16, 80) 136 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Marion County Urban No 178.9 (160.8, 198.8) 60 (8, 88) 75 falling falling trend -2.1 (-9.4, -0.9)
Robertson County Urban No 178.9 (166.0, 192.5) 61 (19, 81) 153 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Hamblen County Urban No 177.0 (164.6, 190.3) 62 (24, 82) 154 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
White County Rural No 176.5 (158.5, 196.3) 63 (14, 89) 73 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.3)
Sullivan County Urban No 176.4 (168.9, 184.2) 64 (34, 75) 438 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.5)
Sevier County Rural No 175.9 (165.9, 186.4) 65 (31, 79) 249 falling falling trend -5.7 (-9.4, -0.8)
Montgomery County Urban No 173.9 (164.8, 183.2) 66 (39, 79) 299 falling falling trend -1.3 (-4.3, -0.9)
Lincoln County Rural No 172.3 (156.2, 189.9) 67 (20, 90) 88 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Anderson County Urban No 169.1 (158.4, 180.5) 68 (40, 86) 192 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Giles County Rural No 168.5 (151.5, 187.2) 69 (24, 92) 76 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Pickett County Rural No 168.5 (130.9, 216.5) 70 (1, 95) 16 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Bradley County Urban No 167.6 (158.0, 177.7) 71 (47, 86) 236 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Washington County Urban No 166.7 (158.2, 175.5) 72 (50, 86) 303 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.9)
Jefferson County Urban No 163.8 (151.4, 177.1) 73 (44, 91) 137 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.3)
Madison County Urban No 163.2 (153.2, 173.8) 74 (53, 89) 208 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Shelby County Urban No 162.1 (158.5, 165.7) 75 (67, 84) 1,638 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.2, -2.2)
Sumner County Urban No 160.8 (153.5, 168.3) 76 (62, 89) 384 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.4, 3.1)
Rutherford County Urban No 160.6 (154.0, 167.4) 77 (63, 88) 477 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Cumberland County Rural No 160.4 (149.6, 172.0) 78 (55, 91) 200 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.5)
Roane County Urban No 160.3 (148.4, 173.1) 79 (52, 92) 144 falling falling trend -2.5 (-7.0, -1.3)
Maury County Urban No 159.4 (149.4, 169.9) 80 (59, 91) 202 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.8)
Carter County Urban No 159.1 (147.5, 171.5) 81 (56, 93) 147 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.8)
Hardin County Rural No 159.0 (142.0, 177.8) 82 (37, 94) 70 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Blount County Urban No 155.6 (147.8, 163.7) 83 (67, 92) 317 falling falling trend -1.3 (-3.9, -1.0)
Knox County Urban No 153.0 (148.5, 157.7) 84 (76, 92) 887 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.5, -1.6)
Franklin County Rural No 153.0 (139.2, 167.9) 85 (57, 94) 96 falling falling trend -1.4 (-4.2, -1.0)
Perry County Rural No 152.8 (123.9, 187.5) 86 (14, 95) 20 falling falling trend -15.0 (-31.5, -1.6)
Wilson County Urban No 149.5 (141.4, 158.0) 87 (74, 94) 264 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.5)
Sequatchie County Urban No 148.6 (126.5, 174.0) 88 (38, 95) 35 falling falling trend -5.5 (-14.0, -2.0)
Davidson County Urban No 148.1 (144.0, 152.2) 89 (81, 93) 1,052 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.2, -2.4)
Fayette County Urban No 147.9 (134.5, 162.5) 90 (65, 94) 97 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.7)
Hamilton County Urban No 146.5 (141.7, 151.5) 91 (81, 94) 723 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.7)
Loudon County Urban No 145.9 (134.8, 157.8) 92 (72, 94) 146 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -0.9)
Moore County Rural No 129.9 (98.9, 168.7) 93 (33, 95) 13 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.7, 0.2)
Bledsoe County Rural No 127.9 (107.4, 151.9) 94 (74, 95) 29 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.6)
Williamson County Urban Yes 120.0 (114.1, 126.2) 95 (92, 95) 320 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 2.6)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/22/2024 4:05 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.

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