Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Pancreas, 2015-2019

All Races (includes 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 *** 11.1 (10.7, 11.4) N/A 921 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.2)
United States *** 11.1 (11.0, 11.1) N/A 43,836 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.2, 0.3)
McNairy County *** 18.9 (13.1, 26.7) 1 (1, 51) 7 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.1, 3.7)
Johnson County *** 17.9 (11.6, 27.2) 2 (1, 65) 5
*
*
Union County *** 16.4 (10.0, 25.7) 3 (1, 69) 4
*
*
Obion County *** 16.3 (11.3, 23.1) 4 (1, 61) 7 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.8, 2.7)
Grundy County *** 16.3 (9.1, 27.5) 5 (1, 70) 3
*
*
Monroe County *** 16.2 (12.1, 21.6) 6 (1, 52) 11 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.7, 2.2)
Benton County *** 14.8 (9.0, 23.9) 7 (1, 70) 4
*
*
Marion County *** 14.8 (9.8, 21.7) 8 (1, 68) 6
*
*
Fentress County *** 14.2 (8.4, 23.0) 9 (1, 70) 4
*
*
Rhea County *** 14.1 (9.6, 20.2) 10 (1, 69) 6 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.3, 3.3)
Grainger County *** 13.9 (8.8, 21.4) 11 (1, 70) 5
*
*
Montgomery County *** 13.8 (11.1, 16.8) 12 (2, 52) 20 rising rising trend 2.6 (0.6, 4.7)
Franklin County *** 13.7 (9.7, 19.0) 13 (1, 68) 8 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.7, 1.5)
Dickson County *** 13.4 (9.6, 18.2) 14 (1, 67) 9
*
*
Gibson County *** 13.3 (9.5, 18.2) 15 (1, 67) 8 rising rising trend 3.2 (0.9, 5.4)
Smith County *** 13.2 (7.7, 21.5) 16 (1, 70) 4
*
*
DeKalb County *** 13.1 (7.5, 21.5) 17 (1, 70) 3
*
*
Carroll County *** 12.9 (8.5, 19.1) 18 (1, 70) 6 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.2, 2.0)
Bedford County *** 12.8 (8.8, 17.9) 19 (1, 70) 7
*
*
Madison County *** 12.6 (9.9, 16.0) 20 (3, 63) 15 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.1, 1.3)
Haywood County *** 12.6 (7.1, 21.2) 21 (1, 70) 3
*
*
Cheatham County *** 12.5 (8.3, 18.1) 22 (1, 70) 6
*
*
Tipton County *** 12.4 (8.8, 17.0) 23 (2, 69) 8
*
*
Henry County *** 12.4 (8.5, 17.8) 24 (2, 70) 7 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.9, 2.5)
Lauderdale County *** 12.3 (7.4, 19.3) 25 (1, 70) 4 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.8, 3.0)
Claiborne County *** 12.0 (7.7, 18.2) 26 (1, 70) 5
*
*
Polk County *** 12.0 (6.8, 20.5) 27 (1, 70) 3
*
*
Hickman County *** 11.9 (7.0, 19.3) 28 (1, 70) 4
*
*
Knox County *** 11.8 (10.6, 13.2) 29 (13, 51) 66 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.2, 1.1)
Loudon County *** 11.8 (8.8, 15.8) 30 (4, 68) 11 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.3, 3.0)
Putnam County *** 11.8 (8.9, 15.4) 31 (5, 68) 11 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.3, 2.8)
Giles County *** 11.7 (7.1, 18.2) 32 (1, 70) 4
*
*
Davidson County *** 11.6 (10.4, 12.8) 33 (15, 52) 77 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.2, 0.7)
Sumner County *** 11.5 (9.6, 13.7) 34 (10, 62) 26 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.3, 2.0)
Hardeman County *** 11.5 (6.9, 18.4) 35 (1, 70) 4 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.4, 2.0)
Hamilton County *** 11.4 (10.1, 12.9) 36 (15, 56) 55 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.5)
Marshall County *** 11.4 (7.1, 17.5) 37 (1, 70) 5 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.6, 1.3)
Fayette County *** 11.4 (7.7, 16.3) 38 (3, 70) 7
*
*
Coffee County *** 11.2 (7.9, 15.5) 39 (4, 70) 8 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.5, 2.2)
Hamblen County *** 11.1 (8.2, 14.9) 40 (6, 70) 10 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.1)
Maury County *** 11.1 (8.5, 14.3) 41 (8, 68) 13 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.2, 1.6)
Shelby County *** 11.1 (10.2, 12.1) 42 (21, 54) 110 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.5, -1.3)
Carter County *** 11.0 (8.1, 14.8) 43 (5, 70) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.5)
Overton County *** 11.0 (6.3, 18.2) 44 (2, 70) 3
*
*
Lawrence County *** 10.9 (7.6, 15.5) 45 (4, 70) 7
*
*
Dyer County *** 10.8 (6.9, 16.3) 46 (3, 70) 5 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.8, 0.6)
McMinn County *** 10.8 (7.8, 14.7) 47 (6, 70) 9 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.9, 0.9)
Hawkins County *** 10.7 (7.8, 14.5) 48 (6, 70) 9 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.0, 2.5)
Cumberland County *** 10.6 (7.9, 14.1) 49 (8, 70) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 0.9)
Henderson County *** 10.2 (6.1, 16.4) 50 (3, 70) 4 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.1)
Washington County *** 10.1 (8.1, 12.6) 51 (16, 69) 18 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.1, 1.4)
Wilson County *** 10.1 (7.9, 12.6) 52 (15, 69) 16 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.3, 1.4)
Hardin County *** 10.1 (6.3, 15.8) 53 (4, 70) 4
*
*
Warren County *** 10.0 (6.6, 14.8) 54 (5, 70) 5 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.0, 3.6)
Robertson County *** 10.0 (7.1, 13.8) 55 (9, 70) 8 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.2, 1.2)
Sullivan County *** 9.8 (8.1, 11.8) 56 (21, 69) 24 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.7, 1.4)
Cocke County *** 9.6 (6.3, 14.3) 57 (8, 70) 6
*
*
Rutherford County *** 9.5 (7.9, 11.4) 58 (24, 69) 27 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Weakley County *** 9.3 (5.7, 14.5) 59 (6, 70) 4 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.4, 2.8)
Blount County *** 9.1 (7.3, 11.3) 60 (24, 70) 18 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Campbell County *** 9.1 (6.0, 13.5) 61 (9, 70) 6 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.6, 1.9)
Bradley County *** 9.1 (7.0, 11.7) 62 (22, 70) 13 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.2)
Sevier County *** 9.1 (6.9, 11.8) 63 (20, 70) 12 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.4)
Jefferson County *** 8.9 (6.2, 12.6) 64 (15, 70) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.1, 0.5)
Lincoln County *** 8.9 (5.6, 13.7) 65 (8, 70) 5 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.9, 2.7)
Greene County *** 8.8 (6.4, 11.8) 66 (20, 70) 10 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.4)
Williamson County *** 8.7 (7.0, 10.6) 67 (34, 70) 21 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.3, 0.0)
White County *** 8.6 (5.0, 14.2) 68 (9, 70) 3
*
*
Anderson County *** 8.6 (6.4, 11.5) 69 (21, 70) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 1.0)
Roane County *** 8.2 (5.7, 11.6) 70 (23, 70) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.3)
Bledsoe County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cannon County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chester County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Crockett County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Decatur County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hancock County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Houston County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Humphreys County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lewis County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Macon County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Meigs County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Moore County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Morgan County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perry County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pickett County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Scott County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sequatchie County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stewart County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Trousdale County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Unicoi County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Van Buren County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wayne County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/21/2021 10:02 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 1969-2018 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.

* 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