Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Incidence Rate Report for Alabama by County

Colon & Rectum (All Stages^), 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages 65+

Sorted by Recentaapc

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
Escambia County 2 Rural 144.6 (106.8, 191.6) 54 (9, 66) 10 falling falling trend -25.7 (-48.5, -0.6)
DeKalb County 2 Rural 156.3 (125.8, 191.9) 41 (9, 65) 19 stable stable trend -12.7 (-24.2, 0.1)
Houston County 2 Urban 140.3 (117.2, 166.6) 57 (22, 66) 27 falling falling trend -5.1 (-12.0, -3.2)
Covington County 2 Rural 156.6 (120.2, 200.5) 40 (7, 66) 13 falling falling trend -4.7 (-14.7, -2.3)
Bibb County 2 Urban 128.6 (82.1, 192.1) 63 (8, 66) 5 falling falling trend -4.4 (-8.1, -1.0)
Barbour County 2 Rural 124.8 (83.9, 178.8) 64 (10, 66) 6 falling falling trend -4.2 (-7.7, -1.2)
Elmore County 2 Urban 139.8 (112.8, 171.4) 58 (18, 66) 19 falling falling trend -4.2 (-5.6, -3.0)
Geneva County 2 Urban 123.9 (84.4, 175.3) 65 (14, 66) 6 falling falling trend -4.0 (-6.6, -1.8)
Tuscaloosa County 2 Urban 136.5 (117.8, 157.4) 60 (29, 66) 40 falling falling trend -3.9 (-6.4, -1.7)
Autauga County 2 Urban 178.3 (141.5, 221.9) 22 (3, 62) 16 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.5, -1.9)
Jefferson County 2 Urban 137.3 (127.3, 147.9) 59 (38, 64) 144 falling falling trend -3.7 (-4.3, -3.1)
Lowndes County 2 Urban 173.0 (102.1, 275.4) 26 (1, 66) 4 falling falling trend -3.7 (-6.8, -0.8)
Cleburne County 2 Rural 176.3 (114.5, 259.8) 24 (1, 66) 5 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.3, -0.7)
Bullock County 2 Rural 214.4 (126.3, 340.1) 5 (1, 66) 4 stable stable trend -3.2 (-7.6, 0.6)
Cherokee County 2 Rural 132.7 (93.2, 183.4) 62 (12, 66) 8 stable stable trend -3.1 (-7.0, 0.7)
Lauderdale County 2 Urban 152.5 (128.3, 180.0) 45 (15, 64) 28 falling falling trend -3.0 (-5.1, -1.1)
Lee County 2 Urban 118.7 (98.1, 142.4) 66 (41, 66) 24 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.9, -0.9)
Madison County 2 Urban 151.0 (136.9, 166.3) 49 (26, 61) 85 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.1, -2.0)
Henry County 2 Urban 146.2 (96.5, 212.7) 52 (4, 66) 6 stable stable trend -2.8 (-6.8, 0.9)
Shelby County 2 Urban 136.0 (118.9, 155.0) 61 (31, 66) 47 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.0, -1.5)
Clay County 2 Rural 211.7 (143.5, 301.1) 6 (1, 65) 6 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.7, 0.4)
Jackson County 2 Rural 184.7 (149.1, 226.3) 18 (3, 59) 19 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.5, 0.1)
Marion County 2 Rural 153.5 (112.7, 204.3) 42 (6, 66) 9 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.5, -0.8)
Morgan County 2 Urban 179.9 (154.9, 207.8) 21 (6, 52) 38 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.9, -1.2)
Colbert County 2 Urban 159.3 (127.4, 196.7) 38 (8, 65) 17 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.4, -0.7)
Butler County 2 Rural 141.8 (93.8, 205.9) 56 (5, 66) 6 stable stable trend -2.4 (-6.5, 1.3)
Mobile County 2 Urban 189.6 (174.7, 205.4) 16 (7, 34) 124 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.1, -1.6)
Cullman County 2 Rural 144.5 (119.4, 173.3) 55 (18, 65) 24 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.6, 0.2)
Marshall County 2 Rural 171.8 (144.0, 203.5) 27 (6, 59) 28 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.5, 0.1)
Montgomery County 2 Urban 186.1 (165.9, 208.1) 17 (6, 43) 64 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.7, -0.7)
Calhoun County 2 Urban 210.7 (182.7, 241.8) 8 (2, 33) 42 falling falling trend -2.0 (-7.0, -0.4)
Dallas County 2 Rural 181.4 (139.0, 232.7) 20 (2, 64) 13 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.7, 0.5)
Talladega County 2 Rural 162.7 (134.1, 195.7) 35 (9, 64) 24 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.7, 0.7)
Chambers County 2 Rural 164.3 (123.5, 214.3) 34 (4, 66) 11 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.0, 1.2)
Lamar County 2 Rural 173.0 (112.7, 254.0) 25 (1, 66) 5 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.9, 1.9)
Macon County 2 Urban 168.1 (115.7, 236.8) 31 (2, 66) 7 stable stable trend -1.9 (-6.3, 2.4)
Baldwin County 2 Urban 164.8 (148.3, 182.7) 33 (15, 54) 76 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.7)
Chilton County 2 Urban 144.7 (107.4, 190.7) 53 (9, 66) 10 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.1, 0.7)
Marengo County 2 Rural 169.2 (115.3, 239.6) 30 (2, 66) 6 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.4, 2.0)
Randolph County 2 Rural 149.5 (103.8, 208.9) 50 (5, 66) 7 stable stable trend -1.7 (-6.0, 2.4)
Crenshaw County 2 Rural 197.5 (126.7, 294.0) 13 (1, 66) 5 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.7, 1.4)
Pike County 2 Rural 153.3 (107.7, 211.6) 43 (4, 66) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-5.3, 2.3)
Greene County 2 Urban 262.3 (162.8, 399.3) 2 (1, 64) 4 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.8, 1.7)
Hale County 2 Urban 147.6 (90.9, 226.8) 51 (2, 66) 4 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.4, 2.6)
St. Clair County 2 Urban 169.8 (141.5, 202.1) 29 (7, 61) 26 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.3, 0.6)
Dale County 2 Rural 153.2 (117.7, 196.2) 44 (8, 66) 13 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.8, 1.2)
Franklin County 2 Rural 206.8 (155.9, 269.1) 11 (1, 61) 11 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.2, 1.7)
Lawrence County 2 Urban 209.2 (161.2, 267.4) 9 (1, 57) 13 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.7, 1.4)
Fayette County 2 Rural 208.5 (145.5, 289.9) 10 (1, 64) 7 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.6, 1.7)
Russell County 2 Urban 196.3 (155.5, 244.7) 14 (2, 59) 17 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.6, 1.7)
Clarke County 2 Rural 278.8 (215.0, 355.6) 1 (1, 24) 13 stable stable trend -0.9 (-4.3, 2.7)
Tallapoosa County 2 Rural 151.8 (117.1, 193.5) 47 (8, 66) 13 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.2, 1.7)
Winston County 2 Rural 166.3 (119.6, 225.3) 32 (3, 66) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.2, 1.6)
Walker County 2 Urban 191.9 (158.0, 231.0) 15 (3, 53) 23 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.5, 1.9)
Blount County 2 Urban 151.1 (119.3, 188.8) 48 (10, 66) 16 stable stable trend -0.7 (-5.4, 10.7)
Coffee County 2 Rural 156.7 (121.8, 198.5) 39 (7, 66) 14 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.7, 2.7)
Monroe County 2 Rural 210.7 (151.3, 285.8) 7 (1, 62) 8 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.4, 2.1)
Coosa County 2 Rural 161.1 (97.6, 250.9) 37 (1, 66) 4 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.5, 2.9)
Etowah County 2 Urban 182.5 (156.0, 212.1) 19 (5, 52) 35 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.1, 5.5)
Pickens County 2 Urban 227.0 (162.3, 309.0) 3 (1, 60) 8 stable stable trend -0.2 (-3.3, 3.0)
Washington County 2 Rural 176.7 (114.7, 260.3) 23 (1, 66) 5 stable stable trend -0.2 (-3.7, 3.5)
Choctaw County 2 Rural 170.9 (110.3, 252.9) 28 (1, 66) 5 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.8, 4.3)
Limestone County 2 Urban 162.2 (134.4, 194.1) 36 (9, 63) 25 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.5, 11.2)
Sumter County 2 Rural 203.6 (124.8, 312.5) 12 (1, 66) 4 stable stable trend 1.7 (-3.1, 7.1)
Conecuh County 2 Rural 152.0 (93.9, 233.0) 46 (2, 66) 4
*
*
Wilcox County 2 Rural 217.6 (136.9, 328.7) 4 (1, 66) 5
*
*
Perry County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/25/2026 6:19 pm.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.

† 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.

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.

Source: SEER and NPCR data. For more specific information please see the table.

* 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