Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Incidence Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Kidney & Renal Pelvis (All Stages^), 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Count

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Age-Adjusted Incidence Rate
cases 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 Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Tennessee 2 N/A 19.9 (19.4, 20.3) N/A 1,688 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.1, -0.6)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 17.5 (17.5, 17.6) N/A 70,592 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.6)
Meigs County 2 Rural 20.9 (11.3, 35.6) 39 (1, 85) 3
*
*
Trousdale County 2 Urban 31.3 (17.8, 51.0) 2 (1, 85) 3
*
*
Lewis County 2 Rural 24.0 (14.0, 38.7) 18 (1, 85) 4
*
*
Bledsoe County 2 Rural 18.8 (11.5, 30.1) 66 (3, 85) 4 stable stable trend 1.1 (-3.8, 7.5)
Chester County 2 Urban 18.2 (11.2, 28.5) 71 (3, 85) 4 falling falling trend -25.9 (-49.0, -4.3)
Grundy County 2 Rural 21.5 (13.1, 34.0) 32 (1, 85) 4
*
*
Benton County 2 Rural 16.8 (10.1, 27.0) 76 (5, 85) 4
*
*
DeKalb County 2 Rural 14.2 (8.8, 22.3) 82 (18, 85) 4
*
*
Stewart County 2 Urban 26.6 (16.2, 41.5) 9 (1, 85) 4
*
*
Unicoi County 2 Urban 19.8 (11.8, 31.3) 56 (1, 85) 4 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.6, 5.9)
Crockett County 2 Urban 26.3 (16.2, 40.5) 11 (1, 85) 5 stable stable trend 3.8 (-0.4, 9.4)
Cannon County 2 Urban 25.0 (16.0, 37.7) 16 (1, 84) 5
*
*
Morgan County 2 Urban 17.2 (10.9, 26.1) 75 (6, 85) 5 stable stable trend 0.2 (-3.1, 3.7)
Polk County 2 Urban 20.1 (12.6, 30.7) 53 (2, 85) 5
*
*
Decatur County 2 Rural 28.9 (18.4, 44.3) 5 (1, 84) 5 rising rising trend 7.0 (2.4, 14.1)
Overton County 2 Rural 15.5 (9.9, 23.5) 81 (12, 85) 5 stable stable trend 1.2 (-2.5, 5.5)
Union County 2 Urban 20.7 (13.2, 31.3) 43 (1, 85) 5 stable stable trend 1.8 (-2.1, 6.5)
Wayne County 2 Rural 23.2 (15.0, 35.0) 26 (1, 85) 5
*
*
Scott County 2 Rural 22.0 (14.3, 32.4) 31 (1, 85) 6
*
*
Sequatchie County 2 Urban 23.6 (15.1, 35.6) 20 (1, 85) 6
*
*
Humphreys County 2 Rural 21.1 (14.0, 31.1) 36 (1, 85) 6 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.5, 4.1)
Fentress County 2 Rural 20.7 (13.5, 30.9) 42 (2, 85) 6 stable stable trend 2.4 (-1.1, 7.1)
Haywood County 2 Rural 25.7 (17.0, 37.6) 14 (1, 84) 6 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.2, 4.2)
Claiborne County 2 Rural 14.1 (9.5, 20.5) 83 (24, 85) 6 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.8, 5.6)
Giles County 2 Rural 18.4 (12.4, 26.4) 70 (5, 85) 7 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.7, 5.4)
Lauderdale County 2 Rural 23.4 (16.1, 33.0) 21 (1, 84) 7 rising rising trend 5.3 (1.4, 10.6)
Franklin County 2 Rural 11.9 (8.2, 16.9) 85 (53, 85) 7 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.7, 2.8)
Grainger County 2 Urban 21.0 (14.3, 30.2) 37 (2, 85) 7 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.5, 4.9)
Henry County 2 Rural 13.5 (9.4, 19.2) 84 (36, 85) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.4, 1.8)
Henderson County 2 Rural 20.2 (14.1, 28.3) 51 (4, 85) 8 stable stable trend 1.8 (-1.5, 5.7)
Weakley County 2 Rural 18.6 (12.8, 26.3) 67 (7, 85) 8 stable stable trend 3.3 (0.0, 7.2)
Marion County 2 Urban 20.4 (14.1, 28.7) 47 (3, 85) 8 rising rising trend 4.3 (0.3, 9.3)
Smith County 2 Urban 29.9 (20.9, 41.7) 4 (1, 80) 8 rising rising trend 5.1 (1.8, 9.9)
White County 2 Rural 19.8 (13.9, 27.5) 57 (4, 85) 8 stable stable trend 2.3 (-2.1, 7.8)
Hardin County 2 Rural 19.1 (13.4, 26.8) 63 (4, 85) 8 stable stable trend -1.0 (-14.2, 3.8)
Hickman County 2 Urban 27.9 (19.8, 38.3) 7 (1, 78) 8
*
*
McNairy County 2 Rural 26.0 (18.4, 35.8) 12 (1, 82) 9 rising rising trend 4.7 (1.5, 8.7)
Macon County 2 Urban 30.2 (21.7, 41.0) 3 (1, 68) 9
*
*
Marshall County 2 Rural 21.3 (15.4, 29.0) 33 (3, 84) 9 stable stable trend 2.5 (-1.2, 7.3)
Obion County 2 Rural 21.2 (15.4, 28.6) 35 (2, 84) 10 rising rising trend 3.7 (0.3, 8.1)
Carroll County 2 Rural 26.5 (19.1, 36.0) 10 (1, 79) 10 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.2, 3.4)
Cheatham County 2 Urban 19.3 (14.0, 26.0) 61 (5, 85) 10 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.9, 4.9)
Hardeman County 2 Rural 31.5 (23.2, 41.9) 1 (1, 61) 10 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.9, 5.0)
Lincoln County 2 Rural 22.1 (16.2, 29.6) 30 (2, 84) 10 stable stable trend 4.6 (0.0, 10.7)
Campbell County 2 Urban 18.6 (13.8, 24.7) 69 (11, 85) 11 falling falling trend -5.5 (-14.4, -0.3)
Dyer County 2 Rural 23.0 (17.2, 30.2) 27 (2, 83) 11 stable stable trend 0.6 (-16.2, 5.3)
Coffee County 2 Rural 16.5 (12.5, 21.4) 79 (20, 85) 12 falling falling trend -3.0 (-13.2, -0.1)
Bedford County 2 Rural 20.3 (15.5, 26.3) 50 (5, 83) 12 stable stable trend 2.7 (-1.0, 7.3)
Rhea County 2 Rural 28.2 (21.3, 36.9) 6 (1, 65) 12 stable stable trend 3.1 (0.0, 7.1)
Warren County 2 Rural 23.7 (17.9, 30.8) 19 (2, 79) 12 stable stable trend 3.1 (-1.0, 8.2)
Cocke County 2 Rural 22.7 (17.2, 29.7) 28 (2, 81) 13 stable stable trend 2.8 (-0.3, 6.8)
Gibson County 2 Urban 20.0 (15.3, 25.8) 55 (7, 83) 13 rising rising trend 2.7 (0.7, 5.0)
Jefferson County 2 Urban 18.6 (14.2, 24.0) 68 (12, 85) 14
*
*
Carter County 2 Urban 16.7 (12.8, 21.6) 78 (21, 85) 14 stable stable trend 3.6 (0.0, 8.1)
Monroe County 2 Rural 21.0 (16.0, 27.2) 38 (4, 82) 14 stable stable trend 2.2 (-1.1, 6.1)
Lawrence County 2 Rural 25.8 (20.0, 33.0) 13 (1, 71) 14 stable stable trend 1.7 (-1.3, 5.2)
Fayette County 2 Urban 23.3 (18.1, 29.8) 23 (2, 79) 15 stable stable trend 1.6 (-2.0, 6.4)
Hawkins County 2 Urban 20.3 (15.8, 25.9) 49 (7, 83) 16 rising rising trend 4.7 (2.9, 6.9)
Loudon County 2 Urban 16.7 (13.1, 21.4) 77 (23, 85) 16 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.0, 5.4)
Roane County 2 Urban 19.3 (15.1, 24.6) 59 (9, 84) 16 rising rising trend 9.1 (1.0, 25.1)
Dickson County 2 Urban 25.0 (19.8, 31.3) 15 (1, 72) 17 rising rising trend 3.2 (0.1, 7.2)
Robertson County 2 Urban 20.1 (16.0, 25.1) 52 (9, 83) 18 stable stable trend 1.8 (-1.3, 5.7)
Putnam County 2 Rural 19.0 (15.2, 23.6) 65 (14, 83) 18 stable stable trend 2.2 (-0.7, 5.6)
Tipton County 2 Urban 24.7 (19.7, 30.5) 17 (2, 73) 18 stable stable trend 2.5 (-1.0, 6.9)
Hamblen County 2 Urban 23.3 (18.7, 28.7) 25 (3, 76) 19 rising rising trend 2.3 (0.2, 4.8)
McMinn County 2 Rural 27.3 (21.8, 33.8) 8 (1, 57) 19 rising rising trend 11.3 (2.2, 33.1)
Anderson County 2 Urban 20.4 (16.5, 25.0) 48 (9, 81) 21 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.2, 3.7)
Greene County 2 Rural 20.0 (16.2, 24.7) 54 (10, 82) 21 rising rising trend 4.2 (1.7, 7.5)
Cumberland County 2 Rural 20.7 (16.4, 25.8) 44 (8, 81) 22 stable stable trend 1.7 (-1.0, 5.0)
Bradley County 2 Urban 19.3 (16.0, 23.1) 60 (17, 81) 26 stable stable trend -0.2 (-12.7, 3.3)
Sevier County 2 Rural 20.8 (17.3, 24.9) 41 (9, 79) 28 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.5, 3.8)
Madison County 2 Urban 23.3 (19.4, 27.6) 24 (5, 69) 29 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.9, 3.0)
Maury County 2 Urban 23.4 (19.6, 27.7) 22 (5, 68) 29 rising rising trend 2.8 (1.0, 4.9)
Washington County 2 Urban 17.5 (14.7, 20.8) 73 (28, 83) 29 stable stable trend 2.1 (-0.2, 4.9)
Wilson County 2 Urban 19.7 (16.9, 23.0) 58 (18, 79) 36 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.3, 3.4)
Blount County 2 Urban 19.1 (16.4, 22.3) 64 (20, 80) 38 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.7, 3.1)
Montgomery County 2 Urban 20.6 (17.7, 23.7) 46 (14, 77) 40 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.3, 4.6)
Williamson County 2 Urban 17.2 (15.1, 19.6) 74 (40, 83) 49 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.1, 4.6)
Sumner County 2 Urban 20.8 (18.3, 23.7) 40 (15, 73) 50 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.7, 2.5)
Sullivan County 2 Urban 22.4 (19.6, 25.6) 29 (9, 65) 51 rising rising trend 3.4 (1.6, 5.6)
Rutherford County 2 Urban 19.2 (17.0, 21.5) 62 (26, 77) 61 stable stable trend -5.4 (-13.4, 2.2)
Hamilton County 2 Urban 21.3 (19.4, 23.4) 34 (16, 63) 99 rising rising trend 2.2 (0.9, 3.9)
Knox County 2 Urban 18.2 (16.6, 19.9) 72 (39, 78) 102 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.3, 2.5)
Davidson County 2 Urban 15.7 (14.4, 17.1) 80 (62, 83) 116 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.6, 1.8)
Shelby County 2 Urban 20.6 (19.4, 22.0) 45 (26, 63) 210 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.5, 3.3)
Clay County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hancock County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Houston County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Johnson County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Moore County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perry County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pickett County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Van Buren County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/18/2026 6:53 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.


† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (SEER areas use 20 age groups and NPCR areas use 19 age groups). Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Rates calculated using SEER*Stat. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.

‡ Incidence data come from different sources. 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.

Rates and trends are computed using different standards for malignancy. For more information see malignant.html.

^ All Stages refers to any stage. Due to changes in stage coding, Combined Summary Stage with Expanded Regional Codes (2004+) is used for data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases and Merged Summary Stage is used for data from National Program of Cancer Registries databases. Due to the increased complexity with staging, other staging variables maybe used if necessary.

⋔ 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. The rates used in CI*Rank are all age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population using 19 age groups for SEER and NPCR areas. More information about methodology can be found on the CI*Rank website.

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.

Φ Rural–urban county classifications are based on the 2023 USDA Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (except for Connecticut Counties which use 2013 codes). State-level cancer rates for rural areas are calculated using cancer cases registered exclusively in rural counties, while state-level cancer rates for urban areas are calculated using cases registered exclusively in urban counties.

1 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2024 submission.

2 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2024 submission).

* 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.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top