Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Alabama by County

All Cancer Sites (All Stages^), 2014-2018

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages <50

Sorted by CI*Rank
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
Age-Adjusted Incidence Rate
cases per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate descending
CI*Rank⋔
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by CI rank ascending
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 *** 108.6 (106.9, 110.3) N/A 3,160 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 0.9)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 *** 106.1 (105.9, 106.3) N/A 209,535 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.1)
Barbour County 6 *** 71.5 (53.9, 93.0) 67 (49, 67) 11 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.5, 0.6)
Escambia County 6 *** 83.9 (67.9, 102.5) 66 (33, 67) 19 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.8, 0.5)
Lee County 6 *** 85.8 (77.6, 94.7) 65 (53, 67) 83 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.4)
Hale County 6 *** 83.5 (57.0, 117.7) 64 (8, 67) 6 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.9, 3.1)
Cherokee County 6 *** 95.1 (74.1, 120.4) 63 (10, 67) 14 stable stable trend 0.2 (-3.6, 4.0)
Cleburne County 6 *** 97.8 (70.6, 131.9) 62 (4, 67) 9 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.1, 4.2)
Russell County 6 *** 98.3 (84.2, 114.1) 61 (20, 67) 35 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.5, 1.7)
Chilton County 6 *** 99.1 (82.8, 117.6) 60 (16, 67) 26 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.2, 1.1)
Blount County 6 *** 97.3 (83.2, 113.2) 59 (21, 66) 34 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.4, 2.0)
Tuscaloosa County 6 *** 98.5 (90.5, 106.9) 58 (34, 65) 118 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 0.9)
DeKalb County 6 *** 98.1 (85.3, 112.3) 57 (21, 66) 42 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.0, 3.1)
Pike County 6 *** 100.1 (79.5, 124.2) 56 (9, 67) 17 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.3, 3.1)
Washington County 6 *** 100.5 (74.1, 133.3) 55 (4, 67) 10 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.3, 4.4)
Geneva County 6 *** 100.6 (79.3, 125.9) 54 (7, 67) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.3, 1.8)
Shelby County 6 *** 100.0 (92.7, 107.7) 53 (32, 63) 139 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.7, 1.2)
Coffee County 6 *** 101.8 (86.7, 118.6) 52 (12, 66) 33 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.3, 3.7)
Houston County 6 *** 103.7 (92.6, 115.7) 51 (21, 65) 65 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.0, 1.0)
Mobile County 6 *** 103.9 (98.2, 109.8) 50 (30, 60) 252 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
Montgomery County 6 *** 103.8 (96.2, 111.9) 49 (26, 62) 140 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.5, 1.3)
Jefferson County 6 *** 104.1 (99.7, 108.8) 48 (33, 58) 416 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Baldwin County 6 *** 104.9 (96.9, 113.5) 47 (25, 61) 127 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.2, 1.6)
Macon County 6 *** 104.3 (76.1, 139.1) 46 (3, 67) 9 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.9, 3.7)
Randolph County 6 *** 107.3 (83.3, 136.1) 45 (4, 67) 14 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.1, 3.4)
Franklin County 6 *** 105.4 (85.8, 128.1) 44 (5, 66) 20 stable stable trend 1.7 (-0.6, 4.1)
Henry County 6 *** 108.4 (81.1, 142.0) 43 (3, 67) 11 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.6, 2.0)
Etowah County 6 *** 108.9 (97.5, 121.2) 42 (13, 62) 68 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.0, 2.1)
Marion County 6 *** 111.2 (90.1, 135.7) 41 (4, 66) 20 stable stable trend -14.8 (-29.0, 2.3)
Colbert County 6 *** 111.1 (95.1, 128.9) 40 (7, 64) 35 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.2, 3.9)
Calhoun County 6 *** 110.9 (99.9, 122.8) 39 (12, 60) 75 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.7, 1.8)
Madison County 6 *** 111.6 (105.4, 118.1) 38 (19, 53) 242 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.4, 2.4)
Coosa County 6 *** 112.4 (78.2, 157.1) 37 (1, 67) 7 stable stable trend 2.7 (-2.5, 8.1)
Choctaw County 6 *** 114.0 (81.3, 155.5) 36 (1, 67) 8 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.8, 5.8)
Morgan County 6 *** 114.3 (103.4, 125.9) 35 (10, 57) 82 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.2, 2.7)
Winston County 6 *** 114.5 (90.2, 143.4) 34 (2, 66) 15 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.1, 3.6)
Bibb County 6 *** 114.9 (91.6, 142.3) 33 (3, 66) 17 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.5, 4.3)
Bullock County 6 *** 118.4 (83.3, 163.4) 32 (1, 67) 7 stable stable trend 1.9 (-2.3, 6.3)
Lauderdale County 6 *** 117.3 (104.4, 131.3) 31 (6, 58) 62 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.5, 3.4)
Limestone County 6 *** 119.0 (107.1, 132.0) 30 (6, 55) 73 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.2, 2.2)
Dale County 6 *** 117.4 (100.2, 136.6) 29 (4, 61) 34 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.6, 4.2)
Butler County 6 *** 117.9 (90.9, 150.3) 28 (1, 66) 13 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.4, 3.4)
Marshall County 6 *** 118.5 (106.0, 132.0) 27 (5, 56) 67 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.6, 2.3)
Dallas County 6 *** 119.6 (99.7, 142.2) 26 (3, 63) 26 rising rising trend 2.3 (0.3, 4.4)
Lawrence County 6 *** 119.6 (99.0, 143.3) 25 (3, 63) 24 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.2, 2.1)
Talladega County 6 *** 121.0 (107.5, 135.6) 24 (4, 54) 59 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.1, 2.9)
Wilcox County 6 *** 121.6 (84.5, 168.9) 23 (1, 67) 7 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.6, 1.5)
Autauga County 6 *** 121.0 (105.3, 138.4) 22 (3, 59) 43 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 1.3)
Cullman County 6 *** 120.5 (106.9, 135.2) 21 (5, 54) 58 stable stable trend 2.0 (0.0, 4.1)
Monroe County 6 *** 118.4 (92.5, 149.3) 20 (1, 66) 14 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.8, 5.0)
St. Clair County 6 *** 121.2 (108.6, 134.9) 19 (5, 50) 67 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.3, 3.4)
Clarke County 6 *** 122.7 (98.0, 151.6) 18 (2, 65) 17 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.7, 2.2)
Jackson County 6 *** 123.1 (106.0, 142.1) 17 (3, 58) 38 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.8, 3.3)
Walker County 6 *** 124.6 (109.0, 141.6) 16 (3, 53) 47 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.1, 2.8)
Elmore County 6 *** 125.2 (111.9, 139.7) 15 (3, 47) 65 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.5, 3.0)
Chambers County 6 *** 123.7 (102.4, 147.9) 14 (2, 60) 24 stable stable trend 1.5 (0.0, 3.1)
Covington County 6 *** 126.4 (105.6, 150.1) 13 (2, 61) 26 stable stable trend 3.4 (-0.2, 7.1)
Marengo County 6 *** 126.5 (98.1, 160.4) 12 (1, 65) 14 stable stable trend 2.3 (-0.4, 5.0)
Sumter County 6 *** 130.2 (91.7, 178.7) 11 (1, 67) 8 stable stable trend 3.0 (-0.5, 6.6)
Clay County 6 *** 130.4 (96.0, 172.9) 10 (1, 66) 10 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.7, 3.8)
Fayette County 6 *** 130.7 (100.1, 167.8) 9 (1, 65) 12 stable stable trend 3.7 (0.0, 7.5)
Lamar County 6 *** 131.4 (97.7, 173.0) 8 (1, 66) 10 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.0, 3.5)
Tallapoosa County 6 *** 130.4 (109.9, 153.6) 7 (1, 55) 29 stable stable trend 1.9 (0.0, 3.8)
Crenshaw County 6 *** 138.5 (103.9, 180.7) 6 (1, 64) 11 rising rising trend 3.3 (0.5, 6.2)
Perry County 6 *** 141.5 (97.4, 197.8) 5 (1, 66) 7 stable stable trend 3.4 (-1.6, 8.8)
Greene County 6 *** 144.7 (96.6, 207.3) 4 (1, 67) 6 stable stable trend 2.9 (-0.5, 6.3)
Pickens County 6 *** 142.9 (113.5, 177.6) 3 (1, 57) 17 stable stable trend 2.9 (-0.6, 6.6)
Conecuh County 6 *** 145.2 (106.5, 193.1) 2 (1, 65) 9 stable stable trend 2.0 (-2.2, 6.5)
Lowndes County 6 *** 167.8 (122.4, 223.9) 1 (1, 58) 9 stable stable trend 2.3 (-0.8, 5.6)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/02/2022 6:22 am.

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 1969-2018 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 stage.

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

Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer incidence statistics. When the population size for a denominator is small, the rates may be unstable. A rate is unstable when a small change in the numerator (e.g., only one or two additional cases) has a dramatic effect on the calculated rate.

Data for 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