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, Ages <65

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 229.3 (227.4, 231.3) N/A 11,892 falling falling trend -0.3 (-1.1, -0.1)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 222.9 (222.7, 223.2) N/A 734,330 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.7, 0.0)
Autauga County 6 Urban 257.6 (239.4, 276.9) 18 (4, 44) 158 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.2, 1.3)
Baldwin County 6 Urban 214.4 (205.8, 223.3) 57 (42, 63) 525 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.5)
Bibb County 6 Urban 244.3 (216.3, 275.0) 26 (3, 63) 59 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.5, 1.7)
Blount County 6 Urban 222.0 (205.0, 240.2) 52 (21, 64) 137 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.7, 1.2)
Calhoun County 6 Urban 260.0 (246.6, 274.0) 16 (5, 35) 311 rising rising trend 2.2 (0.1, 6.1)
Chilton County 6 Urban 236.7 (216.6, 258.3) 37 (9, 61) 111 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.1)
Colbert County 6 Urban 238.0 (220.1, 257.1) 34 (10, 60) 146 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.4)
Elmore County 6 Urban 249.9 (235.2, 265.3) 23 (7, 47) 232 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.8, 1.4)
Etowah County 6 Urban 240.9 (227.5, 255.0) 29 (13, 52) 264 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.8)
Geneva County 6 Urban 204.3 (180.2, 230.9) 62 (26, 67) 59 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 0.8)
Greene County 6 Urban 272.7 (220.8, 333.9) 6 (1, 65) 23 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.1, 2.4)
Hale County 6 Urban 268.4 (231.7, 309.6) 8 (1, 58) 44 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.3, 3.5)
Henry County 6 Urban 240.4 (208.6, 276.1) 30 (3, 65) 46 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.6, 1.1)
Houston County 6 Urban 229.3 (216.3, 243.0) 45 (21, 59) 253 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.6)
Jefferson County 6 Urban 232.3 (227.0, 237.7) 41 (27, 51) 1,596 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.0)
Lauderdale County 6 Urban 227.3 (213.0, 242.4) 49 (22, 61) 211 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.7, 1.3)
Lawrence County 6 Urban 262.2 (237.8, 288.6) 15 (2, 50) 96 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.5, 1.2)
Lee County 6 Urban 173.7 (164.4, 183.4) 67 (64, 67) 273 falling falling trend -2.0 (-6.8, -0.9)
Limestone County 6 Urban 226.4 (213.6, 239.8) 50 (24, 61) 251 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.5, 1.3)
Lowndes County 6 Urban 290.7 (243.3, 345.0) 3 (1, 54) 31 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.3, 3.1)
Macon County 6 Urban 241.5 (208.9, 278.1) 28 (2, 64) 46 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.6, 2.3)
Madison County 6 Urban 212.8 (206.2, 219.5) 58 (47, 63) 867 falling falling trend -3.3 (-6.3, -0.4)
Mobile County 6 Urban 231.4 (224.7, 238.3) 42 (27, 53) 985 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.4)
Montgomery County 6 Urban 233.4 (224.3, 242.7) 40 (22, 54) 536 stable stable trend 0.5 (0.0, 1.1)
Morgan County 6 Urban 245.3 (232.8, 258.4) 25 (10, 48) 314 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.6)
Pickens County 6 Urban 279.1 (246.4, 315.3) 5 (1, 44) 59 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.2, 2.3)
Russell County 6 Urban 193.5 (177.7, 210.5) 65 (51, 67) 119 falling falling trend -4.3 (-16.1, -1.1)
Shelby County 6 Urban 207.9 (199.4, 216.7) 59 (48, 65) 476 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
St. Clair County 6 Urban 239.5 (225.5, 254.3) 32 (13, 55) 234 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.4, 1.2)
Tuscaloosa County 6 Urban 203.5 (194.7, 212.7) 63 (51, 65) 424 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.7, -1.8)
Walker County 6 Urban 268.3 (250.5, 287.2) 9 (2, 31) 189 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.2, 1.3)
Barbour County 6 Rural 224.1 (198.6, 252.2) 51 (11, 66) 61 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.5, 1.8)
Bullock County 6 Rural 204.5 (167.1, 248.3) 61 (10, 67) 23 falling falling trend -3.3 (-8.4, -1.0)
Butler County 6 Rural 269.0 (235.8, 305.7) 7 (1, 53) 54 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.5, 2.5)
Chambers County 6 Rural 246.5 (223.5, 271.5) 24 (4, 59) 95 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.7, 1.2)
Cherokee County 6 Rural 235.8 (208.6, 265.8) 38 (5, 64) 65 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.5, 2.9)
Choctaw County 6 Rural 194.6 (162.1, 232.6) 64 (20, 67) 29 falling falling trend -20.5 (-31.0, -9.5)
Clarke County 6 Rural 284.3 (253.7, 317.8) 4 (1, 36) 70 rising rising trend 3.2 (1.6, 6.9)
Clay County 6 Rural 243.8 (207.7, 284.8) 27 (2, 65) 37 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2)
Cleburne County 6 Rural 237.2 (203.4, 275.4) 35 (2, 65) 39 falling falling trend -2.2 (-5.5, -0.4)
Coffee County 6 Rural 221.2 (203.1, 240.5) 54 (21, 65) 118 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.2)
Conecuh County 6 Rural 266.9 (225.3, 314.6) 10 (1, 62) 35 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.0, 3.7)
Coosa County 6 Rural 234.8 (193.5, 283.2) 39 (2, 67) 28 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.6, 3.8)
Covington County 6 Rural 218.7 (197.7, 241.5) 55 (18, 65) 90 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.3, 2.4)
Crenshaw County 6 Rural 298.7 (257.5, 345.1) 2 (1, 38) 43 rising rising trend 2.9 (1.0, 5.1)
Cullman County 6 Rural 229.2 (214.8, 244.3) 46 (18, 60) 208 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.3)
Dale County 6 Rural 214.9 (196.2, 234.9) 56 (25, 65) 108 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.4, 1.3)
Dallas County 6 Rural 239.5 (217.0, 263.8) 31 (7, 62) 96 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.4, 2.4)
DeKalb County 6 Rural 180.9 (166.9, 195.8) 66 (60, 67) 134 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.4)
Escambia County 6 Rural 228.6 (207.0, 252.1) 48 (12, 64) 88 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.1)
Fayette County 6 Rural 229.1 (196.3, 266.3) 47 (4, 66) 39 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.2, 3.4)
Franklin County 6 Rural 207.1 (184.9, 231.5) 60 (26, 67) 67 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.2)
Jackson County 6 Rural 229.4 (211.3, 248.7) 44 (15, 63) 134 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.9, 1.9)
Lamar County 6 Rural 264.7 (226.2, 308.2) 12 (1, 61) 38 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.5, 2.8)
Marengo County 6 Rural 266.7 (233.2, 303.9) 11 (1, 55) 52 stable stable trend 9.0 (-0.3, 14.9)
Marion County 6 Rural 221.7 (198.2, 247.4) 53 (13, 65) 72 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.7, 2.0)
Marshall County 6 Rural 230.8 (217.0, 245.2) 43 (19, 60) 228 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 1.0)
Monroe County 6 Rural 255.7 (224.7, 290.1) 20 (1, 60) 57 stable stable trend 0.1 (-5.0, 1.0)
Perry County 6 Rural 258.3 (211.0, 313.8) 17 (1, 66) 24 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.4, 4.2)
Pike County 6 Rural 255.2 (228.4, 284.4) 21 (2, 58) 73 stable stable trend 1.0 (0.0, 2.1)
Randolph County 6 Rural 238.6 (210.0, 270.3) 33 (4, 64) 58 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.2, 3.4)
Sumter County 6 Rural 250.5 (207.4, 300.0) 22 (1, 65) 29 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.1, 3.0)
Talladega County 6 Rural 257.5 (241.7, 274.0) 19 (5, 39) 221 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.2, 1.2)
Tallapoosa County 6 Rural 264.6 (242.0, 288.9) 13 (2, 44) 121 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.3)
Washington County 6 Rural 262.4 (226.2, 303.0) 14 (1, 62) 43 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.9, 2.8)
Wilcox County 6 Rural 303.6 (257.0, 356.6) 1 (1, 43) 34 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.2, 2.3)
Winston County 6 Rural 236.8 (208.9, 267.7) 36 (4, 64) 60 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.9, 1.2)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/14/2024 3:20 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.
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