Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Breast, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, 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 15.3?
 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 N/A No 21.7 (21.0, 22.3) N/A 998 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 1.6)
United States N/A No 19.3 (19.2, 19.4) N/A 42,308 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
Roane County Urban Yes 11.6 (7.6, 17.7) 72 (51, 72) 6 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.3, 0.1)
Carter County Urban Yes 13.4 (9.2, 19.6) 71 (38, 72) 7 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.5, -0.6)
Franklin County Rural Yes 15.1 (9.2, 23.6) 70 (17, 72) 5 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.6, -0.1)
Lincoln County Rural No 15.7 (9.3, 25.2) 69 (12, 72) 4 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.2, 1.8)
Cocke County Rural No 16.7 (10.5, 25.8) 68 (12, 72) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.1, 0.6)
Wilson County Urban No 16.9 (13.3, 21.2) 67 (30, 72) 16 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.5, -1.1)
Jefferson County Urban No 16.9 (11.6, 24.2) 66 (15, 72) 7
*
*
Williamson County Urban No 17.7 (14.8, 21.1) 65 (32, 71) 26 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 4.2)
Maury County Urban No 17.7 (13.4, 23.0) 64 (22, 72) 12 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.6)
Hardin County Rural No 17.9 (10.0, 30.2) 63 (4, 72) 4 falling falling trend -3.5 (-5.4, -1.8)
Washington County Urban No 18.2 (14.4, 22.8) 62 (24, 71) 17 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -1.1)
White County Rural No 18.6 (10.9, 30.4) 61 (3, 72) 4 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.3, -0.4)
Davidson County Urban No 18.6 (16.8, 20.7) 60 (36, 68) 75 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.5)
Blount County Urban No 19.2 (15.4, 23.8) 59 (20, 71) 19 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.2, -0.7)
Giles County Rural No 19.3 (11.8, 30.5) 58 (4, 72) 4 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.5, -0.4)
Robertson County Urban No 19.5 (14.2, 26.3) 57 (11, 72) 9 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.6)
Loudon County Urban No 19.6 (14.1, 27.0) 56 (10, 72) 10 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.4, 0.2)
Sumner County Urban No 19.7 (16.3, 23.6) 55 (21, 68) 25 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.0)
Campbell County Urban No 20.0 (13.1, 29.6) 54 (6, 72) 6 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.4, 0.1)
DeKalb County Rural No 20.1 (11.4, 34.1) 53 (3, 72) 3
*
*
Grainger County Urban No 20.1 (12.0, 33.0) 52 (3, 72) 4 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.1, 0.8)
Cumberland County Rural No 20.4 (14.4, 28.3) 51 (7, 71) 11 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 1.9)
Knox County Urban No 20.5 (18.3, 23.0) 50 (26, 63) 65 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.5)
Hamilton County Urban No 20.6 (18.1, 23.3) 49 (24, 65) 55 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.3)
Monroe County Rural No 20.7 (13.9, 29.9) 48 (4, 72) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.1, 1.7)
Henry County Rural No 20.7 (13.4, 31.4) 47 (4, 72) 6 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.2, -0.1)
Anderson County Urban No 20.8 (15.9, 27.0) 46 (10, 70) 13 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 1.1)
Montgomery County Urban No 20.9 (16.9, 25.5) 45 (16, 68) 20 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Rhea County Rural No 21.0 (13.1, 32.5) 44 (3, 72) 5
*
*
Obion County Rural No 21.3 (13.2, 32.9) 43 (3, 72) 5 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 0.7)
Warren County Rural No 21.5 (14.4, 31.2) 42 (3, 72) 6
*
*
McMinn County Rural No 21.7 (15.4, 30.0) 41 (5, 71) 9 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.8)
Sevier County Rural No 21.8 (17.1, 27.6) 40 (8, 68) 16 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.5)
Putnam County Rural No 22.0 (16.6, 28.8) 39 (7, 70) 12 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.4, -1.3)
Rutherford County Urban No 22.1 (19.1, 25.6) 38 (15, 62) 38 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.4)
Dyer County Rural No 22.3 (14.9, 32.4) 37 (3, 72) 6 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.2, 1.8)
Marion County Urban No 22.3 (13.6, 34.9) 36 (2, 72) 5
*
*
Lawrence County Rural No 22.4 (15.4, 31.8) 35 (3, 72) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.1)
Greene County Rural No 22.4 (16.9, 29.5) 34 (6, 69) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.8)
Fayette County Urban No 23.3 (16.0, 33.2) 33 (2, 71) 8 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.8, 1.2)
Cheatham County Urban No 23.5 (15.9, 33.9) 32 (2, 71) 6 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.7, -0.6)
Hamblen County Urban No 24.1 (18.1, 31.7) 31 (3, 68) 11 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.6)
Coffee County Rural No 24.4 (18.0, 32.5) 30 (3, 69) 10 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.3, -0.3)
Humphreys County Rural No 24.6 (14.7, 40.0) 29 (1, 72) 4
*
*
Sullivan County Urban No 24.6 (20.7, 29.1) 28 (7, 58) 31 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Marshall County Rural No 24.6 (15.8, 36.6) 27 (1, 72) 5 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.6, 1.1)
Hawkins County Urban No 24.6 (18.2, 32.9) 26 (3, 67) 11 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.4)
Madison County Urban No 25.3 (20.1, 31.5) 25 (4, 62) 18 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 1.1)
McNairy County Rural No 25.6 (16.4, 38.9) 24 (1, 71) 5
*
*
Gibson County Urban No 25.8 (18.7, 34.9) 23 (2, 68) 9 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.5)
Shelby County Urban No 25.8 (23.9, 27.8) 22 (9, 37) 146 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Carroll County Rural No 26.1 (16.8, 39.2) 21 (1, 72) 6 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -0.2)
Lauderdale County Rural No 26.2 (15.9, 41.3) 20 (1, 72) 4 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.8, 0.9)
Bradley County Urban No 26.5 (21.5, 32.5) 19 (3, 56) 20 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.2)
Henderson County Rural No 26.7 (17.1, 40.2) 18 (1, 71) 5
*
*
Bedford County Rural No 26.8 (19.0, 36.8) 17 (1, 68) 8 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.6, 1.7)
Tipton County Urban No 26.9 (19.8, 36.0) 16 (1, 66) 10 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.2)
Haywood County Rural No 27.1 (15.6, 44.7) 15 (1, 72) 4
*
*
Morgan County Urban No 27.5 (16.1, 44.8) 14 (1, 72) 4
*
*
Unicoi County Urban No 27.6 (16.2, 45.5) 13 (1, 72) 4
*
*
Hickman County Urban No 28.0 (17.9, 42.6) 12 (1, 70) 5
*
*
Union County Urban No 28.1 (17.3, 44.4) 11 (1, 71) 4
*
*
Claiborne County Rural No 28.3 (18.9, 41.1) 10 (1, 68) 6 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.4, 1.9)
Dickson County Urban No 28.6 (21.0, 38.1) 9 (1, 64) 10 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.4)
Overton County Rural No 29.0 (17.8, 45.3) 8 (1, 71) 5
*
*
Polk County Urban No 30.9 (19.0, 48.9) 7 (1, 71) 4
*
*
Hardeman County Rural No 31.1 (19.8, 47.2) 6 (1, 69) 5
*
*
Chester County Urban No 31.7 (18.8, 50.8) 5 (1, 71) 4
*
*
Crockett County Urban No 32.8 (17.9, 56.0) 4 (1, 72) 3
*
*
Grundy County Rural No 33.3 (18.6, 56.1) 3 (1, 72) 3
*
*
Weakley County Rural No 33.8 (23.9, 47.0) 2 (1, 54) 8 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.1, 2.2)
Scott County Rural No 35.5 (22.7, 53.5) 1 (1, 67) 5 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.1, 2.7)
Benton County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bledsoe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cannon County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Decatur County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Fentress County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hancock County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Houston County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Johnson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lewis County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Macon County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Meigs County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Moore County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perry County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pickett County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sequatchie County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Smith County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stewart County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Trousdale County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Van Buren County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wayne County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 04/24/2025 12:44 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.

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