Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Lung & Bronchus, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 25.1?
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 No 47.0 (46.3, 47.6) N/A 4,060 falling falling trend -4.4 (-5.2, -3.5)
United States No 35.0 (34.9, 35.0) N/A 142,497 falling falling trend -4.8 (-5.1, -4.6)
Williamson County Yes 22.5 (19.8, 25.5) 95 (94, 95) 54 falling falling trend -6.4 (-8.0, -4.9)
Fayette County No 34.7 (28.6, 41.9) 94 (75, 94) 24 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -0.7)
Hamilton County No 37.4 (35.0, 40.0) 93 (84, 94) 181 falling falling trend -6.7 (-9.7, -3.6)
Davidson County No 38.2 (36.1, 40.4) 92 (83, 94) 263 falling falling trend -7.6 (-10.3, -4.7)
Shelby County No 39.6 (37.9, 41.5) 91 (81, 94) 405 falling falling trend -5.2 (-7.1, -3.3)
Moore County No 40.0 (24.2, 64.3) 90 (8, 95) 4
*
*
Knox County No 41.4 (39.0, 43.8) 89 (74, 93) 238 falling falling trend -3.9 (-4.8, -3.0)
Cumberland County No 41.8 (36.5, 48.0) 88 (57, 94) 52 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Wilson County No 42.1 (37.8, 46.8) 87 (64, 94) 72 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.9)
Rutherford County No 43.0 (39.5, 46.8) 86 (64, 93) 120 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.7)
Franklin County No 43.3 (36.1, 51.7) 85 (44, 94) 27 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Carter County No 43.8 (37.8, 50.7) 84 (48, 94) 39 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.6)
Loudon County No 43.9 (38.0, 50.5) 83 (48, 94) 44 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.0)
Madison County No 43.9 (38.8, 49.5) 82 (54, 94) 57 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.7)
Sumner County No 44.4 (40.6, 48.5) 81 (57, 92) 103 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.6, -1.7)
Sequatchie County No 44.9 (33.3, 59.8) 80 (14, 94) 11 falling falling trend -8.4 (-15.7, -0.5)
Blount County No 45.0 (40.9, 49.5) 79 (55, 92) 91 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.8, -1.0)
Bradley County No 45.0 (40.2, 50.4) 78 (50, 92) 64 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0)
Anderson County No 45.2 (39.7, 51.3) 77 (46, 93) 52 falling falling trend -4.6 (-6.8, -2.4)
Giles County No 46.0 (37.4, 56.3) 76 (27, 94) 21 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.6)
Lincoln County No 46.3 (38.2, 55.8) 75 (29, 94) 24 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.1, -1.1)
Washington County No 47.0 (42.6, 51.8) 74 (46, 89) 85 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Haywood County No 48.0 (36.5, 62.5) 73 (8, 94) 12 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.4)
Maury County No 48.6 (43.0, 54.8) 72 (35, 89) 58 falling falling trend -12.3 (-22.6, -0.7)
Hamblen County No 48.9 (42.6, 56.0) 71 (30, 90) 44 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Roane County No 49.1 (42.8, 56.2) 70 (31, 90) 46 falling falling trend -5.3 (-8.0, -2.5)
Sullivan County No 49.2 (45.3, 53.3) 69 (44, 83) 126 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.9, -1.5)
Montgomery County No 49.2 (44.3, 54.4) 68 (39, 87) 80 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.2, -1.9)
Sevier County No 51.9 (46.6, 57.7) 67 (27, 82) 75 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Coffee County No 52.0 (44.8, 60.2) 66 (19, 88) 38 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Clay County No 52.0 (36.5, 74.0) 65 (1, 94) 7 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.2, -0.9)
Putnam County No 52.3 (46.1, 59.3) 64 (21, 87) 52 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Bledsoe County No 52.5 (39.4, 69.2) 63 (4, 94) 11 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -0.6)
Weakley County No 52.6 (43.5, 63.2) 62 (12, 92) 24 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.2)
Marion County No 52.7 (43.4, 63.7) 61 (11, 92) 23 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.1)
Unicoi County No 52.8 (41.6, 66.6) 60 (6, 94) 16 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.1)
Cannon County No 52.8 (39.3, 69.9) 59 (3, 94) 11 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.5, 0.1)
Humphreys County No 53.6 (42.3, 67.5) 58 (6, 93) 16 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.2)
Robertson County No 53.8 (46.9, 61.5) 57 (15, 83) 46 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.0, -1.2)
Jefferson County No 53.9 (46.9, 61.9) 56 (15, 84) 44 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.3)
Warren County No 54.0 (45.8, 63.5) 55 (12, 88) 31 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.5)
Henry County No 54.5 (46.1, 64.4) 54 (11, 88) 30 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.8, -0.1)
Chester County No 54.6 (41.7, 70.5) 53 (4, 93) 12 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 0.8)
Cheatham County No 54.6 (45.4, 65.3) 52 (8, 89) 27 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.3)
Wayne County No 54.6 (42.2, 70.2) 51 (3, 94) 13 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.8)
Van Buren County No 54.7 (35.2, 83.3) 50 (1, 94) 5 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.1, 2.5)
Obion County No 54.8 (45.6, 65.7) 49 (8, 90) 26 falling falling trend -3.9 (-7.1, -0.7)
Marshall County No 55.2 (45.5, 66.6) 48 (6, 89) 24 stable stable trend 4.9 (-8.3, 19.9)
Morgan County No 55.9 (44.3, 70.1) 47 (3, 91) 16 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.2)
Hardin County No 56.5 (46.7, 68.1) 46 (5, 88) 25 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.8)
Cocke County No 56.6 (48.0, 66.6) 45 (7, 84) 33 falling falling trend -10.9 (-19.8, -1.0)
Henderson County No 57.0 (46.8, 68.9) 44 (5, 87) 23 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.4, -1.3)
White County No 57.1 (47.0, 68.9) 43 (5, 86) 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.2)
Bedford County No 57.4 (48.9, 67.1) 42 (6, 82) 33 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Lake County No 57.5 (37.6, 85.4) 41 (1, 94) 5 falling falling trend -4.7 (-7.3, -1.9)
Stewart County No 57.5 (43.6, 75.2) 40 (1, 94) 12 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 0.3)
McMinn County No 57.6 (50.4, 65.8) 39 (9, 75) 47 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Smith County No 57.7 (44.9, 73.2) 38 (1, 92) 15 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.3)
Grundy County No 58.2 (44.1, 76.0) 37 (1, 93) 12 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.8, 1.5)
Hawkins County No 58.6 (51.6, 66.4) 36 (8, 70) 53 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.6)
Johnson County No 58.8 (46.8, 73.5) 35 (2, 91) 17 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.1, 1.4)
McNairy County No 60.1 (49.8, 72.3) 34 (3, 82) 25 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 0.8)
Crockett County No 60.2 (45.9, 78.0) 33 (1, 92) 12 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.7)
Trousdale County No 60.2 (41.6, 84.6) 32 (1, 94) 7 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.2, -0.1)
Greene County No 60.2 (53.8, 67.3) 31 (8, 64) 67 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.0, -1.6)
DeKalb County No 60.4 (48.2, 75.1) 30 (1, 88) 18 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 1.0)
Lawrence County No 60.4 (51.8, 70.1) 29 (4, 77) 36 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Gibson County No 60.6 (52.5, 69.6) 28 (3, 73) 41 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Hickman County No 60.8 (49.7, 73.9) 27 (2, 85) 22 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.6)
Tipton County No 60.8 (52.8, 69.8) 26 (5, 69) 43 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Dickson County No 61.0 (52.8, 70.2) 25 (5, 73) 41 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Union County No 62.1 (49.1, 77.7) 24 (1, 85) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Meigs County No 62.2 (46.3, 82.5) 23 (1, 93) 11 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.2, 1.6)
Polk County No 62.2 (49.3, 78.2) 22 (1, 85) 16 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 0.3)
Lewis County No 62.5 (47.0, 82.2) 21 (1, 92) 12 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.5)
Monroe County No 63.6 (55.4, 72.8) 20 (3, 62) 46 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Hardeman County No 64.4 (52.7, 78.1) 19 (1, 75) 22 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.8)
Hancock County No 64.9 (43.6, 94.5) 18 (1, 94) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.6)
Claiborne County No 65.0 (54.8, 76.7) 17 (1, 69) 31 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.3)
Decatur County No 65.1 (49.6, 85.0) 16 (1, 87) 13 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.2)
Dyer County No 65.3 (55.6, 76.4) 15 (1, 65) 33 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.7)
Pickett County No 65.8 (44.8, 97.2) 14 (1, 94) 7 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.6, 2.2)
Overton County No 66.5 (54.8, 80.3) 13 (1, 74) 23 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.4)
Grainger County No 67.5 (55.9, 81.3) 12 (1, 71) 25 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.4, -0.2)
Macon County No 68.8 (56.1, 83.6) 11 (1, 69) 21 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.4)
Carroll County No 68.9 (58.1, 81.3) 10 (1, 61) 30 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.8)
Fentress County No 68.9 (55.6, 85.0) 9 (1, 70) 20 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Perry County No 69.0 (49.0, 95.4) 8 (1, 92) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.5)
Jackson County No 70.4 (54.9, 90.0) 7 (1, 76) 15 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 0.9)
Rhea County No 70.7 (60.1, 82.8) 6 (1, 51) 33 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.2)
Houston County No 73.2 (53.5, 99.0) 5 (1, 88) 9 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.6, 1.9)
Benton County No 73.3 (59.1, 90.7) 4 (1, 60) 20 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.8, 1.5)
Lauderdale County No 75.0 (62.0, 90.0) 3 (1, 51) 24 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.7)
Campbell County No 75.2 (65.7, 85.9) 2 (1, 35) 46 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
Scott County No 76.5 (63.0, 92.4) 1 (1, 54) 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.1)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/09/2022 4:14 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.

* 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