Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Lung & Bronchus, 2015-2019

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

Sorted by CI*Rank
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 descending
CI*Rank⋔
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by CI rank ascending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Tennessee *** 49.1 (48.4, 49.8) N/A 4,136 falling falling trend -5.1 (-6.8, -3.5)
United States *** 36.7 (36.6, 36.8) N/A 146,023 falling falling trend -4.9 (-5.2, -4.5)
Williamson County *** 23.7 (20.8, 26.8) 95 (94, 95) 53 falling falling trend -6.4 (-8.1, -4.6)
Fayette County *** 37.2 (30.8, 44.8) 94 (72, 94) 25 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.5)
Hamilton County *** 40.4 (37.8, 43.1) 93 (79, 94) 192 falling falling trend -3.7 (-4.7, -2.8)
Shelby County *** 41.2 (39.4, 43.1) 92 (80, 94) 411 falling falling trend -5.9 (-8.3, -3.5)
Davidson County *** 41.4 (39.2, 43.7) 91 (79, 94) 280 falling falling trend -10.7 (-15.0, -6.2)
Clay County *** 42.8 (28.8, 63.5) 90 (15, 95) 6 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.7, -1.3)
Knox County *** 43.4 (40.9, 45.9) 89 (72, 93) 243 falling falling trend -3.8 (-4.8, -2.7)
Giles County *** 44.1 (35.5, 54.3) 88 (40, 94) 19 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.6)
Carter County *** 44.5 (38.4, 51.4) 87 (48, 94) 40 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.5)
Cumberland County *** 45.0 (39.2, 51.5) 86 (51, 94) 52 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Rutherford County *** 45.0 (41.3, 48.9) 85 (63, 93) 119 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.7, -1.6)
Wilson County *** 45.1 (40.5, 50.1) 84 (55, 94) 73 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.7)
Sumner County *** 45.2 (41.3, 49.5) 83 (60, 93) 101 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.6, -1.5)
Loudon County *** 45.4 (39.3, 52.5) 82 (45, 94) 43 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.8)
Madison County *** 46.2 (40.9, 52.0) 81 (49, 94) 58 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Blount County *** 46.5 (42.3, 51.1) 80 (54, 92) 90 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.8, -0.9)
Moore County *** 46.8 (29.4, 72.6) 79 (3, 95) 5
*
*
Lincoln County *** 46.9 (38.7, 56.5) 78 (31, 94) 24 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.1, -1.0)
Anderson County *** 47.7 (42.1, 54.0) 77 (43, 93) 54 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.8, -1.9)
Bradley County *** 48.6 (43.5, 54.2) 76 (43, 91) 66 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.8)
Washington County *** 48.7 (44.1, 53.6) 75 (46, 91) 86 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Coffee County *** 49.0 (42.0, 57.0) 74 (33, 94) 35 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Haywood County *** 49.4 (37.4, 64.4) 73 (14, 94) 12 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Franklin County *** 49.6 (41.8, 58.6) 72 (27, 94) 30 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Sullivan County *** 50.2 (46.3, 54.4) 71 (44, 86) 126 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.1, -1.4)
Montgomery County *** 50.6 (45.6, 56.1) 70 (39, 88) 79 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.3, -1.9)
Marion County *** 50.8 (41.7, 61.7) 69 (22, 94) 22 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.1)
Hamblen County *** 50.8 (44.3, 58.1) 68 (30, 92) 45 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.6)
Chester County *** 51.2 (38.6, 66.8) 67 (10, 94) 11 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.9, 0.9)
Crockett County *** 51.4 (38.3, 68.2) 66 (8, 94) 10 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Humphreys County *** 51.4 (40.2, 65.3) 65 (13, 94) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Cannon County *** 51.7 (38.3, 68.8) 64 (8, 94) 10 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.8, 0.0)
Lake County *** 51.7 (33.2, 78.2) 63 (1, 95) 5 falling falling trend -4.8 (-7.7, -1.8)
Smith County *** 52.2 (40.1, 67.1) 62 (8, 94) 13 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.2)
Roane County *** 52.6 (46.0, 60.0) 61 (28, 88) 48 falling falling trend -5.4 (-8.6, -2.0)
Maury County *** 52.6 (46.6, 59.1) 60 (28, 87) 59 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.9)
Warren County *** 52.7 (44.5, 62.2) 59 (20, 92) 29 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Marshall County *** 53.9 (44.2, 65.3) 58 (16, 93) 22 falling falling trend -4.4 (-7.4, -1.3)
Bedford County *** 54.1 (45.7, 63.7) 57 (17, 91) 31 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.4)
Bledsoe County *** 54.5 (40.9, 71.8) 56 (4, 94) 11 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -0.4)
Jefferson County *** 54.6 (47.4, 62.8) 55 (18, 88) 43 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Sevier County *** 54.6 (49.2, 60.6) 54 (27, 79) 77 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.2, -0.1)
Unicoi County *** 54.9 (43.5, 68.9) 53 (7, 94) 17 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.3)
Putnam County *** 55.0 (48.5, 62.3) 52 (21, 84) 52 falling falling trend -13.9 (-23.6, -3.0)
Weakley County *** 55.4 (46.1, 66.4) 51 (13, 91) 25 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.4)
Obion County *** 55.7 (46.2, 66.8) 50 (12, 91) 25 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 1.0)
Robertson County *** 55.9 (48.7, 63.9) 49 (17, 84) 46 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Sequatchie County *** 56.3 (43.0, 73.1) 48 (4, 94) 13 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.9, 2.2)
Morgan County *** 56.8 (45.2, 70.8) 47 (5, 93) 17 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.2)
McMinn County *** 57.0 (49.7, 65.2) 46 (16, 81) 45 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Hardin County *** 57.8 (47.7, 69.7) 45 (7, 89) 24 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 1.0)
Henry County *** 57.9 (49.2, 68.2) 44 (10, 83) 32 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Meigs County *** 58.5 (43.1, 78.3) 43 (1, 94) 10 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.3, 1.7)
Van Buren County *** 58.7 (38.3, 88.3) 42 (1, 94) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.8, 3.0)
Henderson County *** 58.9 (48.4, 71.2) 41 (6, 91) 23 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.9, -1.5)
Grundy County *** 59.2 (44.9, 77.2) 40 (2, 94) 12 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.6, 1.8)
Lawrence County *** 59.8 (51.3, 69.6) 39 (8, 79) 35 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.5)
Gibson County *** 59.9 (51.9, 68.9) 38 (10, 77) 41 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Hickman County *** 60.3 (49.2, 73.5) 37 (4, 87) 21 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.7)
Greene County *** 60.9 (54.4, 68.1) 36 (12, 68) 67 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.6, -1.2)
White County *** 60.9 (50.4, 73.2) 35 (5, 84) 24 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.5)
Stewart County *** 61.0 (46.6, 79.2) 34 (2, 93) 12 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.8, 0.6)
Tipton County *** 61.7 (53.5, 70.8) 33 (8, 71) 43 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.2)
McNairy County *** 62.5 (51.9, 75.0) 32 (3, 83) 25 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.0)
Dickson County *** 62.6 (54.2, 72.1) 31 (5, 72) 41 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Hawkins County *** 63.1 (55.7, 71.4) 30 (8, 65) 55 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.8)
Cocke County *** 63.8 (54.5, 74.5) 29 (5, 72) 35 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.5)
Wayne County *** 64.5 (50.8, 81.2) 28 (1, 86) 16 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.1)
Decatur County *** 65.7 (49.9, 85.8) 27 (1, 92) 13 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.3, 1.4)
Polk County *** 65.7 (52.2, 82.2) 26 (1, 84) 17 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.5)
Dyer County *** 66.0 (56.2, 77.3) 25 (2, 67) 33 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 0.9)
Hardeman County *** 66.3 (54.4, 80.4) 24 (1, 77) 22 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 0.9)
DeKalb County *** 66.5 (53.3, 82.3) 23 (1, 81) 18 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 1.2)
Pickett County *** 67.1 (45.4, 99.2) 22 (1, 94) 7 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.3, 2.6)
Cheatham County *** 67.1 (56.6, 79.1) 21 (2, 66) 32 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.2, -0.1)
Johnson County *** 67.3 (54.5, 82.9) 20 (1, 74) 20 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.7, 1.7)
Trousdale County *** 67.5 (47.1, 94.0) 19 (1, 94) 7 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.2)
Union County *** 69.1 (55.1, 86.0) 18 (1, 78) 18 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.4)
Monroe County *** 69.4 (60.7, 79.2) 17 (1, 51) 48 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.5)
Claiborne County *** 69.5 (59.0, 81.6) 16 (1, 58) 32 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.5)
Lewis County *** 69.7 (53.0, 90.6) 15 (1, 90) 13 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.8)
Jackson County *** 70.6 (55.1, 90.2) 14 (1, 82) 15 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 1.1)
Hancock County *** 71.0 (48.5, 101.7) 13 (1, 94) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.7)
Grainger County *** 71.5 (59.1, 86.1) 12 (1, 61) 25 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.5, 0.0)
Macon County *** 72.1 (58.9, 87.5) 11 (1, 67) 22 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Overton County *** 73.2 (60.7, 87.8) 10 (1, 55) 25 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Carroll County *** 74.4 (63.0, 87.6) 9 (1, 48) 31 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.9, 1.0)
Fentress County *** 74.8 (60.7, 91.6) 8 (1, 62) 21 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.5)
Rhea County *** 75.9 (64.8, 88.6) 7 (1, 47) 34 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Benton County *** 76.0 (61.6, 93.4) 6 (1, 65) 21 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.6, 1.8)
Lauderdale County *** 76.5 (63.3, 91.7) 5 (1, 51) 25 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.9)
Houston County *** 78.1 (57.3, 105.1) 4 (1, 82) 10 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.7, 2.0)
Campbell County *** 79.0 (69.2, 90.0) 3 (1, 30) 48 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.2)
Scott County *** 80.9 (66.8, 97.4) 2 (1, 46) 24 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.3)
Perry County *** 82.2 (60.3, 110.5) 1 (1, 76) 10 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 0.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/22/2021 9:35 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 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