Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Alabama by County

All Cancer Sites (All Stages^), 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
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
Alabama 6 498.6 (494.9, 502.4) N/A 14,234 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.8, -0.1)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 480.6 (480.1, 481.1) N/A 863,255 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.0)
Lowndes County 6 726.5 (631.3, 833.0) 1 (1, 8) 45 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.9, 4.8)
Crenshaw County 6 615.3 (540.5, 698.2) 2 (1, 36) 54 stable stable trend 1.7 (0.0, 3.7)
Elmore County 6 596.9 (564.4, 630.8) 3 (1, 16) 274 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.4)
Wilcox County 6 572.0 (488.5, 666.4) 4 (1, 61) 38 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.3, 2.4)
Walker County 6 569.3 (535.8, 604.4) 5 (2, 28) 234 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.4)
Bibb County 6 565.9 (509.6, 627.1) 6 (1, 47) 77 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.6, 1.2)
Macon County 6 560.4 (497.8, 629.3) 7 (1, 54) 65 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.4, 3.3)
Autauga County 6 558.5 (521.3, 597.8) 8 (2, 36) 174 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.5)
Chambers County 6 558.1 (512.7, 606.8) 9 (2, 46) 121 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.8)
Sumter County 6 552.1 (472.5, 642.1) 10 (1, 63) 38 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.1, 0.4)
Clarke County 6 551.3 (498.6, 608.7) 11 (2, 53) 86 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.9)
Henry County 6 550.8 (491.5, 616.1) 12 (2, 56) 69 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.0, 0.9)
Calhoun County 6 547.3 (521.5, 574.0) 13 (4, 32) 367 rising rising trend 4.9 (1.8, 8.5)
Barbour County 6 544.7 (494.2, 599.2) 14 (2, 53) 90 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.7, 1.2)
Colbert County 6 542.2 (507.4, 578.9) 15 (3, 43) 192 stable stable trend 0.1 (-4.7, 1.2)
Morgan County 6 542.0 (517.5, 567.4) 16 (4, 36) 387 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Perry County 6 539.0 (448.7, 642.9) 17 (1, 66) 27 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.4, 2.4)
Tallapoosa County 6 538.4 (500.1, 579.2) 18 (3, 47) 162 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.5, 1.3)
Dallas County 6 528.5 (484.9, 575.1) 19 (3, 55) 120 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.3)
Clay County 6 526.5 (461.5, 599.0) 20 (2, 64) 49 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.3, 1.1)
Geneva County 6 526.2 (478.0, 578.4) 21 (3, 57) 94 stable stable trend 3.1 (-0.9, 9.9)
Pike County 6 523.3 (473.5, 577.0) 22 (3, 58) 86 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.9, 1.7)
Butler County 6 522.0 (463.6, 586.2) 23 (2, 63) 63 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.6, 2.0)
St. Clair County 6 520.7 (492.8, 549.9) 24 (8, 49) 278 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Hale County 6 520.4 (454.1, 594.3) 25 (2, 65) 50 stable stable trend 4.9 (-6.1, 17.9)
Montgomery County 6 518.8 (499.9, 538.2) 26 (12, 43) 599 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.6)
Franklin County 6 516.7 (470.1, 566.8) 27 (4, 61) 94 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.2, 1.4)
Winston County 6 515.5 (466.0, 569.4) 28 (4, 62) 87 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 1.1)
Talladega County 6 515.2 (486.2, 545.6) 29 (8, 50) 254 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.1, 4.9)
Jefferson County 6 514.5 (503.7, 525.6) 30 (17, 40) 1,826 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8)
Lamar County 6 513.9 (449.0, 586.3) 31 (2, 65) 49 stable stable trend -7.5 (-17.4, 0.9)
Etowah County 6 508.1 (482.9, 534.4) 32 (12, 52) 326 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Bullock County 6 507.5 (427.8, 598.2) 33 (2, 67) 31 stable stable trend -0.8 (-7.3, 1.0)
Marengo County 6 502.2 (445.4, 564.6) 34 (4, 65) 62 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.2)
Marion County 6 501.7 (459.0, 547.8) 35 (6, 62) 107 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.2, 2.1)
Tuscaloosa County 6 500.4 (480.1, 521.3) 36 (18, 52) 498 falling falling trend -2.4 (-6.7, -1.3)
Houston County 6 498.3 (473.2, 524.6) 37 (15, 56) 311 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Baldwin County 6 493.9 (477.6, 510.7) 38 (23, 53) 745 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.3)
Choctaw County 6 493.8 (431.2, 564.4) 39 (3, 67) 48 falling falling trend -5.5 (-11.0, -0.7)
Lawrence County 6 489.4 (447.2, 534.8) 40 (9, 64) 106 falling falling trend -4.6 (-14.1, -1.7)
Pickens County 6 489.3 (435.4, 548.5) 41 (5, 67) 64 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.2)
Limestone County 6 489.1 (462.6, 516.7) 42 (18, 59) 275 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.2)
Fayette County 6 488.3 (429.9, 553.0) 43 (5, 67) 55 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 1.0)
Dale County 6 488.2 (451.9, 526.7) 44 (13, 63) 141 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.5, -0.2)
Cleburne County 6 485.6 (424.2, 554.0) 45 (4, 67) 48 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.5)
Escambia County 6 485.5 (444.8, 529.0) 46 (11, 64) 109 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -0.7)
Mobile County 6 484.1 (471.1, 497.4) 47 (30, 55) 1,126 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.6)
Greene County 6 480.3 (397.6, 576.6) 48 (2, 67) 27 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.6, 2.1)
Marshall County 6 477.4 (451.5, 504.5) 49 (25, 62) 268 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
Chilton County 6 475.5 (437.8, 515.7) 50 (17, 65) 124 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Blount County 6 474.9 (442.9, 508.8) 51 (21, 64) 172 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.7, 0.0)
Jackson County 6 471.6 (438.8, 506.4) 52 (21, 65) 166 falling falling trend -1.8 (-8.5, -0.2)
Covington County 6 470.2 (431.4, 511.8) 53 (16, 66) 117 falling falling trend -1.6 (-7.4, -0.2)
Coffee County 6 467.9 (433.4, 504.5) 54 (22, 65) 143 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.5)
Conecuh County 6 467.5 (403.3, 540.3) 55 (6, 67) 42 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.5)
Cullman County 6 460.3 (433.7, 488.1) 56 (33, 65) 240 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Washington County 6 456.0 (398.9, 519.7) 57 (11, 67) 50 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.5, -0.4)
Monroe County 6 456.0 (405.2, 512.0) 58 (15, 67) 64 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.3, 1.3)
Randolph County 6 454.2 (406.4, 506.7) 59 (18, 67) 72 stable stable trend -2.2 (-8.2, 0.1)
Lauderdale County 6 447.2 (422.5, 473.0) 60 (41, 66) 264 falling falling trend -2.4 (-5.4, -1.7)
Shelby County 6 446.0 (428.8, 463.8) 61 (47, 65) 534 falling falling trend -1.9 (-4.7, -1.3)
Madison County 6 442.2 (428.9, 455.7) 62 (51, 65) 900 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.3)
Cherokee County 6 428.4 (387.1, 473.6) 63 (36, 67) 89 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.2)
Russell County 6 427.2 (393.2, 463.3) 64 (43, 67) 127 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.3, 0.8)
DeKalb County 6 413.1 (385.6, 442.1) 65 (53, 67) 179 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.8, 2.0)
Lee County 6 409.7 (388.4, 431.8) 66 (58, 67) 300 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Coosa County 6 400.4 (337.4, 473.3) 67 (26, 67) 34 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.0, -0.2)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 05/27/2024 5:41 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.

† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). 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. 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 area for additional information.

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

^ All Stages refers to any stage in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) summary stage.
⋔ 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.


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 2022 submission.
6 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 2022 submission).
8 Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program and are based on APCs. Data are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84,85+). Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modifed by NCI. The US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2022 data.
Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.
Data for the 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