Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Alabama by County

Lung & Bronchus (All Stages^), 2017-2021

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

Sorted by Name

County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
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
Alabama 6 N/A 58.4 (57.5, 59.2) N/A 3,892 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -2.0)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 53.1 (53.0, 53.2) N/A 216,523 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.2, -2.9)
Autauga County 6 Urban 61.6 (53.7, 70.3) 40 (7, 58) 45 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.3, 0.2)
Baldwin County 6 Urban 58.2 (54.6, 62.0) 47 (29, 54) 205 falling falling trend -6.7 (-12.4, -1.4)
Barbour County 6 Rural 65.8 (54.5, 79.1) 25 (2, 61) 25 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.6, 0.2)
Bibb County 6 Urban 77.1 (63.5, 93.0) 4 (1, 49) 23 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.6, 2.2)
Blount County 6 Urban 65.0 (57.4, 73.4) 29 (5, 53) 54 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.2)
Bullock County 6 Rural 60.2 (42.9, 82.8) 43 (1, 67) 8 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.5, 3.6)
Butler County 6 Rural 57.6 (45.5, 72.3) 49 (4, 66) 17 falling falling trend -2.8 (-5.1, -0.7)
Calhoun County 6 Urban 75.0 (68.9, 81.5) 6 (2, 31) 118 stable stable trend -1.7 (-9.5, 0.5)
Chambers County 6 Rural 52.2 (43.6, 62.1) 56 (21, 66) 28 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.8, -0.6)
Cherokee County 6 Rural 64.8 (54.2, 77.3) 30 (2, 60) 28 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.9, 1.6)
Chilton County 6 Urban 63.9 (55.0, 74.0) 34 (3, 58) 38 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.5, -0.4)
Choctaw County 6 Rural 43.2 (32.0, 58.2) 64 (32, 67) 10 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.8, -0.4)
Clarke County 6 Rural 64.4 (52.7, 78.2) 31 (2, 61) 22 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.2, 1.2)
Clay County 6 Rural 77.6 (62.0, 96.5) 3 (1, 51) 18 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.1, 1.1)
Cleburne County 6 Rural 63.1 (48.7, 80.9) 36 (1, 65) 14 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.0, 1.6)
Coffee County 6 Rural 59.5 (51.6, 68.3) 46 (11, 61) 42 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.2)
Colbert County 6 Urban 65.0 (57.4, 73.4) 28 (5, 53) 55 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.9, 1.3)
Conecuh County 6 Rural 69.2 (53.4, 89.2) 18 (1, 63) 14 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.3, 4.3)
Coosa County 6 Rural 62.2 (46.2, 83.2) 38 (1, 67) 11 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.5, 1.4)
Covington County 6 Rural 69.5 (60.2, 79.9) 16 (2, 51) 42 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 0.8)
Crenshaw County 6 Rural 93.7 (74.8, 116.5) 1 (1, 30) 18 rising rising trend 3.8 (1.2, 7.0)
Cullman County 6 Rural 61.7 (55.6, 68.3) 39 (12, 54) 78 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.5)
Dale County 6 Rural 70.8 (61.9, 80.8) 14 (1, 46) 47 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.3)
Dallas County 6 Rural 49.5 (41.5, 58.9) 59 (32, 67) 28 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.5, 0.5)
DeKalb County 6 Rural 52.7 (46.4, 59.8) 54 (30, 64) 51 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.5)
Elmore County 6 Urban 67.7 (60.8, 75.1) 19 (3, 48) 74 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.8)
Escambia County 6 Rural 72.3 (62.1, 83.8) 10 (1, 48) 37 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 0.8)
Etowah County 6 Urban 69.4 (63.4, 75.8) 17 (3, 40) 105 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.2)
Fayette County 6 Rural 59.9 (47.3, 75.3) 45 (2, 65) 16 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.3, 1.1)
Franklin County 6 Rural 72.8 (61.6, 85.6) 9 (1, 51) 30 stable stable trend 7.5 (-0.6, 13.1)
Geneva County 6 Urban 71.5 (59.9, 85.0) 11 (1, 52) 28 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.8, 0.6)
Greene County 6 Urban 63.1 (45.2, 87.3) 37 (1, 67) 8
*
*
Hale County 6 Urban 63.5 (49.1, 81.4) 35 (2, 65) 14 rising rising trend 16.4 (6.1, 35.2)
Henry County 6 Urban 65.4 (52.5, 81.1) 26 (1, 63) 19 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.4, 1.4)
Houston County 6 Urban 53.8 (48.5, 59.5) 53 (33, 62) 79 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.0, -1.5)
Jackson County 6 Rural 71.0 (63.0, 80.0) 13 (2, 45) 59 falling falling trend -3.2 (-10.6, -0.8)
Jefferson County 6 Urban 51.5 (49.3, 53.7) 57 (47, 61) 433 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.9)
Lamar County 6 Rural 71.2 (55.7, 90.2) 12 (1, 61) 15 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.2, 2.5)
Lauderdale County 6 Urban 58.0 (52.3, 64.2) 48 (21, 59) 79 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.1, -1.2)
Lawrence County 6 Urban 78.5 (67.6, 90.8) 2 (1, 39) 39 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.2, 1.2)
Lee County 6 Urban 41.0 (36.8, 45.7) 66 (59, 67) 70 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -0.1)
Limestone County 6 Urban 54.8 (49.1, 60.9) 51 (29, 62) 71 falling falling trend -3.2 (-7.4, -1.9)
Lowndes County 6 Urban 74.2 (55.9, 97.5) 7 (1, 63) 11 stable stable trend 1.2 (-3.8, 6.7)
Macon County 6 Urban 43.8 (33.7, 56.6) 63 (35, 67) 13 stable stable trend -0.3 (-4.3, 4.0)
Madison County 6 Urban 48.7 (45.9, 51.7) 60 (50, 64) 230 falling falling trend -3.3 (-6.0, -2.3)
Marengo County 6 Rural 41.5 (31.2, 54.6) 65 (37, 67) 12 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.2, -0.6)
Marion County 6 Rural 66.4 (56.3, 78.2) 24 (2, 56) 31 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.4)
Marshall County 6 Rural 64.2 (58.0, 70.8) 32 (8, 51) 83 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.1, -1.1)
Mobile County 6 Urban 60.0 (57.0, 63.1) 44 (27, 50) 320 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.2, -2.0)
Monroe County 6 Rural 55.3 (44.2, 68.9) 50 (8, 66) 18 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.2, 1.5)
Montgomery County 6 Urban 50.8 (47.0, 54.8) 58 (44, 63) 140 falling falling trend -2.9 (-8.1, -1.8)
Morgan County 6 Urban 66.6 (61.1, 72.5) 22 (6, 46) 113 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.2)
Perry County 6 Rural 35.9 (22.9, 54.9) 67 (35, 67) 5 stable stable trend -2.3 (-6.7, 1.6)
Pickens County 6 Urban 66.8 (53.9, 82.4) 21 (1, 61) 19 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.4, 2.2)
Pike County 6 Rural 66.5 (55.3, 79.5) 23 (2, 59) 26 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.2, 3.4)
Randolph County 6 Rural 73.8 (61.0, 89.0) 8 (1, 52) 25 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.8, 4.9)
Russell County 6 Urban 60.2 (52.3, 69.1) 42 (9, 60) 43 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.9, 1.8)
Shelby County 6 Urban 44.6 (41.0, 48.4) 61 (56, 67) 120 falling falling trend -3.8 (-4.8, -2.7)
St. Clair County 6 Urban 70.5 (63.9, 77.6) 15 (3, 40) 87 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.3, -0.7)
Sumter County 6 Rural 54.7 (39.2, 74.9) 52 (2, 67) 9 stable stable trend -0.3 (-5.8, 5.1)
Talladega County 6 Rural 67.0 (60.3, 74.4) 20 (4, 49) 77 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.2)
Tallapoosa County 6 Rural 65.4 (56.9, 75.0) 27 (4, 54) 45 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.4)
Tuscaloosa County 6 Urban 52.6 (48.5, 56.9) 55 (40, 62) 130 falling falling trend -4.1 (-8.9, -3.1)
Walker County 6 Urban 75.5 (67.8, 83.9) 5 (1, 34) 74 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.3)
Washington County 6 Rural 44.2 (33.0, 58.6) 62 (28, 67) 11 falling falling trend -3.1 (-6.2, -0.2)
Wilcox County 6 Rural 60.9 (44.3, 82.4) 41 (1, 67) 9 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.9, 3.2)
Winston County 6 Rural 64.0 (53.2, 76.9) 33 (2, 61) 25 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.6, -0.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/10/2024 8:32 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 (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. 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 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Summary/Historic Combined Summary Stage (2004+).
⋔ 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.

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).
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 2023 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 2023 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 modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2023 data.

Data for the United States does not include data from Indiana.
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