Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Alabama by County

All Cancer Sites (All Stages^), 2017-2021

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

Sorted by Ruralurban

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban 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 N/A 431.4 (429.0, 433.7) N/A 27,221 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.5)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 444.4 (444.1, 444.7) N/A 1,744,459 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.7, -0.3)
Autauga County 6 Urban 459.5 (437.0, 482.9) 19 (5, 45) 324 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.5, 0.7)
Baldwin County 6 Urban 442.5 (431.9, 453.3) 29 (16, 45) 1,450 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.5)
Bibb County 6 Urban 444.8 (410.3, 481.6) 27 (4, 61) 128 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 1.1)
Blount County 6 Urban 410.1 (389.6, 431.4) 55 (24, 64) 319 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.6)
Calhoun County 6 Urban 493.2 (476.8, 510.0) 5 (2, 16) 733 rising rising trend 2.4 (0.7, 5.0)
Chilton County 6 Urban 422.7 (398.2, 448.3) 49 (16, 63) 237 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.5)
Colbert County 6 Urban 434.3 (413.2, 456.2) 34 (13, 58) 345 stable stable trend -5.6 (-11.3, 0.0)
Elmore County 6 Urban 474.6 (455.8, 494.1) 10 (3, 28) 502 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.7)
Etowah County 6 Urban 453.8 (437.6, 470.4) 22 (9, 42) 640 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.4)
Geneva County 6 Urban 406.7 (377.4, 438.0) 57 (21, 66) 155 falling falling trend -1.6 (-4.0, -0.9)
Greene County 6 Urban 466.4 (408.3, 531.1) 12 (1, 64) 55 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.4, 2.5)
Hale County 6 Urban 453.9 (411.7, 499.6) 21 (3, 62) 94 rising rising trend 6.4 (0.9, 15.8)
Henry County 6 Urban 446.0 (408.8, 485.9) 26 (3, 62) 118 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Houston County 6 Urban 432.0 (416.2, 448.4) 38 (18, 55) 596 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Jefferson County 6 Urban 434.2 (427.7, 440.9) 36 (24, 47) 3,530 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Lauderdale County 6 Urban 411.4 (395.0, 428.4) 54 (32, 63) 522 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.7, -0.5)
Lawrence County 6 Urban 474.9 (445.8, 505.6) 9 (2, 42) 215 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.7)
Lee County 6 Urban 343.6 (330.9, 356.6) 67 (65, 67) 584 falling falling trend -3.7 (-8.8, -1.1)
Limestone County 6 Urban 423.3 (406.9, 440.3) 47 (22, 59) 522 falling falling trend -2.6 (-6.6, -0.1)
Lowndes County 6 Urban 548.3 (492.0, 609.7) 2 (1, 19) 77 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.2, 3.0)
Macon County 6 Urban 430.1 (392.9, 470.1) 41 (6, 65) 113 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.4, 2.2)
Madison County 6 Urban 405.5 (397.0, 414.1) 58 (45, 62) 1,848 stable stable trend -3.1 (-9.1, 0.2)
Mobile County 6 Urban 434.4 (426.1, 442.9) 33 (23, 49) 2,208 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.9)
Montgomery County 6 Urban 447.7 (436.1, 459.5) 24 (13, 41) 1,198 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.7)
Morgan County 6 Urban 467.3 (451.9, 483.1) 11 (5, 30) 737 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Pickens County 6 Urban 502.9 (464.1, 544.3) 3 (1, 30) 135 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.4, 1.7)
Russell County 6 Urban 368.3 (347.7, 389.9) 66 (57, 67) 251 falling falling trend -4.1 (-18.1, -1.2)
Shelby County 6 Urban 394.4 (383.5, 405.6) 60 (50, 65) 1,041 falling falling trend -5.3 (-8.4, -1.7)
St. Clair County 6 Urban 441.7 (424.3, 459.6) 30 (13, 52) 515 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.3)
Tuscaloosa County 6 Urban 391.0 (379.5, 402.8) 62 (53, 65) 926 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.3, -1.9)
Walker County 6 Urban 488.8 (467.7, 510.6) 7 (2, 22) 441 falling falling trend -3.7 (-6.9, -0.3)
Barbour County 6 Rural 444.5 (413.1, 477.9) 28 (5, 60) 158 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.9, 6.8)
Bullock County 6 Rural 434.2 (384.0, 489.6) 35 (3, 66) 57 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.9, 0.0)
Butler County 6 Rural 460.9 (423.2, 501.3) 18 (2, 57) 122 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.8, 2.0)
Chambers County 6 Rural 435.9 (409.1, 464.2) 31 (8, 61) 215 falling falling trend -2.0 (-5.7, -0.6)
Cherokee County 6 Rural 421.5 (390.9, 454.1) 52 (13, 65) 163 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.1)
Choctaw County 6 Rural 384.3 (345.3, 427.0) 64 (25, 67) 79 falling falling trend -5.8 (-10.6, -3.5)
Clarke County 6 Rural 499.9 (464.8, 537.2) 4 (1, 28) 164 rising rising trend 5.5 (0.6, 8.1)
Clay County 6 Rural 466.4 (423.5, 512.8) 13 (2, 58) 96 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.4)
Cleburne County 6 Rural 423.6 (383.6, 467.0) 46 (6, 66) 88 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 1.6)
Coffee County 6 Rural 419.5 (397.2, 442.8) 53 (18, 63) 277 stable stable trend -0.5 (-5.9, 1.0)
Conecuh County 6 Rural 464.9 (418.3, 515.8) 14 (2, 62) 84 rising rising trend 10.1 (1.4, 17.2)
Coosa County 6 Rural 388.1 (342.8, 438.4) 63 (14, 67) 64 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.5, 1.5)
Covington County 6 Rural 394.7 (370.5, 420.2) 59 (34, 66) 219 stable stable trend -3.0 (-12.7, 0.4)
Crenshaw County 6 Rural 558.5 (508.7, 612.3) 1 (1, 10) 102 rising rising trend 2.7 (1.1, 4.6)
Cullman County 6 Rural 406.7 (389.8, 424.2) 56 (35, 64) 471 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Dale County 6 Rural 432.2 (408.7, 456.8) 37 (12, 60) 269 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Dallas County 6 Rural 426.1 (400.0, 453.6) 43 (13, 63) 221 falling falling trend -1.5 (-10.5, -0.1)
DeKalb County 6 Rural 369.3 (351.4, 387.9) 65 (58, 67) 338 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.4, -0.7)
Escambia County 6 Rural 393.2 (368.0, 419.8) 61 (33, 66) 191 falling falling trend -6.5 (-11.5, -1.5)
Fayette County 6 Rural 422.2 (384.1, 463.4) 50 (7, 66) 100 stable stable trend -2.0 (-14.7, 1.2)
Franklin County 6 Rural 421.9 (393.5, 452.0) 51 (13, 64) 170 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Jackson County 6 Rural 424.4 (403.0, 446.8) 44 (18, 62) 320 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.1)
Lamar County 6 Rural 452.1 (409.2, 498.7) 23 (2, 62) 91 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.2, 2.1)
Marengo County 6 Rural 446.8 (409.3, 487.1) 25 (4, 62) 116 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.2, 1.2)
Marion County 6 Rural 423.2 (395.2, 452.8) 48 (14, 64) 184 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.7, 0.3)
Marshall County 6 Rural 423.8 (407.1, 441.0) 45 (21, 60) 515 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Monroe County 6 Rural 427.7 (392.7, 465.3) 42 (7, 65) 122 stable stable trend -0.4 (-7.4, 1.1)
Perry County 6 Rural 435.5 (382.0, 495.1) 32 (2, 66) 53 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.8, 1.9)
Pike County 6 Rural 464.1 (432.1, 497.9) 15 (3, 52) 167 stable stable trend 0.8 (0.0, 1.6)
Randolph County 6 Rural 431.4 (398.2, 466.9) 39 (7, 63) 138 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.6, 2.0)
Sumter County 6 Rural 454.3 (404.4, 508.9) 20 (2, 64) 70 stable stable trend -7.2 (-16.7, 1.5)
Talladega County 6 Rural 461.2 (442.5, 480.6) 17 (6, 39) 494 stable stable trend -0.5 (-5.4, 0.4)
Tallapoosa County 6 Rural 483.1 (457.3, 510.2) 8 (2, 31) 301 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.2, 1.0)
Washington County 6 Rural 461.3 (419.3, 506.6) 16 (2, 59) 98 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.1)
Wilcox County 6 Rural 491.1 (439.1, 547.9) 6 (1, 57) 72 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.9, 1.5)
Winston County 6 Rural 431.3 (399.2, 465.4) 40 (8, 63) 151 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.4, -0.5)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/14/2024 7:08 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 (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.
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.
Source: SEER and NPCR data. For more specific information please see the table.

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