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), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
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 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 *** 515.2 (511.3, 519.1) N/A 14,158 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 0.9)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 *** 487.4 (486.9, 487.8) N/A 859,984 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Coosa County 6 *** 389.8 (328.5, 460.7) 67 (47, 67) 32 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.4, -0.2)
DeKalb County 6 *** 419.8 (391.7, 449.4) 66 (56, 67) 176 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.1, -1.7)
Cherokee County 6 *** 425.2 (383.2, 471.2) 65 (44, 67) 84 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.9, -0.3)
Lee County 6 *** 453.8 (430.2, 478.3) 64 (46, 66) 304 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.2)
Hale County 6 *** 454.8 (393.4, 523.8) 63 (12, 67) 44 falling falling trend -5.8 (-10.1, -1.3)
Chilton County 6 *** 466.8 (428.8, 507.4) 62 (24, 67) 118 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Randolph County 6 *** 467.1 (417.5, 521.4) 61 (15, 67) 70 falling falling trend -3.8 (-7.3, -0.1)
Lauderdale County 6 *** 469.1 (443.5, 495.9) 60 (35, 65) 268 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.7)
Coffee County 6 *** 469.7 (434.5, 507.0) 59 (24, 66) 138 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Madison County 6 *** 469.8 (455.8, 484.2) 58 (44, 64) 902 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Monroe County 6 *** 470.9 (418.7, 528.3) 57 (10, 67) 64 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.2)
Cullman County 6 *** 474.0 (446.6, 502.7) 56 (32, 65) 238 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
Conecuh County 6 *** 474.1 (408.6, 548.1) 55 (6, 67) 42 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.3)
Butler County 6 *** 475.7 (420.4, 536.8) 54 (10, 67) 58 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.7, 2.0)
Pickens County 6 *** 479.8 (425.7, 539.3) 53 (10, 67) 61 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.6)
Shelby County 6 *** 480.7 (462.0, 500.0) 52 (34, 63) 535 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Russell County 6 *** 481.0 (444.4, 519.9) 51 (19, 66) 138 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.5, 0.7)
Washington County 6 *** 481.5 (422.4, 547.1) 50 (8, 67) 52 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.5)
Blount County 6 *** 483.7 (451.0, 518.2) 49 (21, 65) 172 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Franklin County 6 *** 490.0 (443.8, 539.8) 48 (10, 66) 86 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.7)
Greene County 6 *** 493.1 (408.6, 591.3) 47 (2, 67) 27 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.3, 1.8)
Jackson County 6 *** 500.6 (466.3, 536.9) 46 (12, 63) 171 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 1.3)
Covington County 6 *** 501.0 (460.7, 544.2) 45 (10, 64) 122 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.1)
Fayette County 6 *** 503.7 (443.8, 570.1) 44 (4, 66) 55 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 1.2)
Mobile County 6 *** 504.3 (490.8, 518.1) 43 (24, 52) 1,136 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.7)
Baldwin County 6 *** 506.3 (489.2, 523.9) 42 (21, 54) 704 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Cleburne County 6 *** 506.5 (443.4, 576.8) 41 (3, 66) 50 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.9, 1.6)
Marion County 6 *** 507.1 (463.7, 553.9) 40 (8, 64) 106 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.0, 1.7)
Marshall County 6 *** 507.2 (480.0, 535.5) 39 (13, 60) 276 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Dale County 6 *** 507.4 (470.1, 547.0) 38 (9, 63) 144 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.8, 0.0)
Colbert County 6 *** 508.7 (474.8, 544.6) 37 (11, 62) 177 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.2, 1.9)
Barbour County 6 *** 510.1 (460.8, 563.6) 36 (5, 65) 84 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.4, 0.3)
Winston County 6 *** 510.8 (461.2, 564.8) 35 (5, 65) 84 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 1.0)
Tuscaloosa County 6 *** 516.3 (495.2, 538.0) 34 (14, 52) 493 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.5)
Houston County 6 *** 518.5 (492.4, 545.7) 33 (11, 53) 313 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -1.0)
Clay County 6 *** 520.8 (454.6, 594.9) 32 (2, 66) 47 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.8)
Escambia County 6 *** 521.5 (479.5, 566.4) 31 (5, 61) 119 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.7)
Limestone County 6 *** 522.7 (494.3, 552.4) 30 (10, 54) 273 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
Etowah County 6 *** 523.3 (497.4, 550.3) 29 (10, 53) 326 stable stable trend -6.5 (-14.0, 1.7)
Geneva County 6 *** 524.1 (475.9, 576.2) 28 (3, 62) 93 stable stable trend 5.0 (-1.7, 12.2)
St. Clair County 6 *** 526.6 (497.7, 556.8) 27 (9, 51) 268 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Talladega County 6 *** 527.2 (497.4, 558.3) 26 (8, 54) 254 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.6)
Jefferson County 6 *** 527.5 (516.4, 538.9) 25 (15, 39) 1,815 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -1.0)
Montgomery County 6 *** 528.6 (509.2, 548.5) 24 (11, 46) 593 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.6)
Marengo County 6 *** 530.7 (472.5, 594.7) 23 (2, 64) 65 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.1)
Bullock County 6 *** 532.6 (449.6, 626.7) 22 (2, 66) 32 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.4, 3.3)
Lawrence County 6 *** 538.6 (493.6, 586.8) 21 (3, 56) 113 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.7, 1.0)
Henry County 6 *** 539.3 (479.6, 605.1) 20 (2, 63) 65 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.3)
Tallapoosa County 6 *** 541.1 (502.1, 582.7) 19 (3, 52) 155 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.7)
Calhoun County 6 *** 542.5 (516.7, 569.4) 18 (6, 42) 358 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Choctaw County 6 *** 544.3 (476.9, 619.7) 17 (2, 63) 51 stable stable trend -2.1 (-9.4, 5.9)
Dallas County 6 *** 547.6 (504.0, 594.2) 16 (2, 52) 127 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 1.6)
Pike County 6 *** 547.7 (495.9, 603.6) 15 (2, 57) 87 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.3)
Morgan County 6 *** 550.6 (525.6, 576.5) 14 (5, 38) 382 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Clarke County 6 *** 551.8 (498.9, 609.2) 13 (2, 58) 85 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.3)
Bibb County 6 *** 552.5 (495.7, 614.2) 12 (2, 58) 74 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 1.0)
Perry County 6 *** 567.9 (476.8, 671.9) 11 (1, 65) 30 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.1, 3.0)
Wilcox County 6 *** 567.9 (485.6, 661.1) 10 (1, 64) 38 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.6, 1.6)
Lamar County 6 *** 573.2 (504.4, 649.5) 9 (1, 59) 55 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.9, 1.8)
Walker County 6 *** 575.8 (542.1, 611.2) 8 (2, 31) 235 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Autauga County 6 *** 575.8 (536.9, 616.9) 7 (2, 38) 170 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.4)
Macon County 6 *** 581.0 (517.5, 651.0) 6 (1, 54) 68 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.3, 2.4)
Crenshaw County 6 *** 582.9 (510.4, 663.4) 5 (1, 56) 51 stable stable trend 1.5 (-0.2, 3.2)
Sumter County 6 *** 590.8 (508.9, 682.8) 4 (1, 59) 41 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.7, 1.1)
Elmore County 6 *** 591.1 (557.8, 625.9) 3 (2, 20) 256 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.2)
Chambers County 6 *** 607.4 (559.4, 658.6) 2 (1, 25) 129 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.0)
Lowndes County 6 *** 730.1 (635.8, 835.5) 1 (1, 7) 47 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.6, 4.5)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/01/2021 2:04 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.

⋔ 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.

† 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.
‡ 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.
*** No Healthy People 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


1 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database (2001-2018) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2020 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database (2001-2018) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2020 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 1969-2018 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2020 data.

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