Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Alabama by County

Prostate (All Stages^), 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Name
County
 sort alphabetically by name 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 6 120.3 (118.5, 122.1) N/A 3,693 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.3, 1.9)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 110.5 (110.2, 110.7) N/A 212,734 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.0, 4.1)
Autauga County 6 156.2 (137.3, 177.1) 12 (3, 27) 51 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.1, 4.9)
Baldwin County 6 87.2 (80.8, 94.1) 61 (47, 65) 144 falling falling trend -4.6 (-6.1, -3.1)
Barbour County 6 177.6 (150.0, 209.2) 6 (1, 22) 31 stable stable trend -1.5 (-6.5, 3.7)
Bibb County 6 104.4 (81.6, 131.9) 43 (14, 67) 15 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.5, -1.7)
Blount County 6 89.2 (76.2, 103.9) 56 (37, 67) 35 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.0, 0.7)
Bullock County 6 178.1 (134.1, 232.8) 5 (1, 43) 12 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.7, 4.2)
Butler County 6 131.8 (105.2, 163.9) 22 (5, 57) 18 stable stable trend 0.0 (-4.1, 4.5)
Calhoun County 6 135.7 (123.5, 148.8) 20 (10, 34) 97 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.8, 2.1)
Chambers County 6 137.9 (117.2, 161.6) 18 (6, 43) 33 falling falling trend -3.8 (-20.2, -0.5)
Cherokee County 6 75.7 (60.3, 94.9) 66 (43, 67) 17 falling falling trend -4.6 (-7.2, -2.1)
Chilton County 6 108.6 (91.3, 128.3) 40 (18, 63) 29 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.6)
Choctaw County 6 165.0 (130.8, 207.1) 8 (1, 39) 17 stable stable trend 2.3 (-0.3, 8.1)
Clarke County 6 126.3 (102.6, 154.4) 27 (7, 55) 21 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.4, 0.7)
Clay County 6 118.7 (90.0, 155.1) 31 (6, 65) 12 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.9, 4.7)
Cleburne County 6 101.1 (75.5, 133.7) 47 (15, 67) 11 stable stable trend -0.5 (-4.0, 3.7)
Coffee County 6 105.1 (89.6, 122.6) 42 (21, 63) 34 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.3, -1.3)
Colbert County 6 111.6 (96.8, 128.2) 38 (19, 58) 42 rising rising trend 2.8 (0.6, 5.3)
Conecuh County 6 88.8 (63.2, 123.1) 58 (17, 67) 8 stable stable trend -2.8 (-6.5, 0.8)
Coosa County 6 103.0 (76.3, 139.2) 44 (13, 67) 10 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.0, -0.3)
Covington County 6 88.0 (72.2, 106.6) 59 (33, 67) 23 stable stable trend 0.3 (-3.7, 10.7)
Crenshaw County 6 127.1 (97.1, 164.7) 26 (4, 63) 13 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.3, 3.0)
Cullman County 6 69.1 (59.6, 79.9) 67 (59, 67) 40 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.3, -0.9)
Dale County 6 112.3 (96.0, 130.9) 37 (16, 59) 35 falling falling trend -4.9 (-20.5, -1.0)
Dallas County 6 152.8 (130.6, 177.9) 13 (3, 33) 37 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.8, 1.1)
DeKalb County 6 83.4 (71.9, 96.4) 63 (44, 67) 39 stable stable trend 5.9 (-4.3, 13.9)
Elmore County 6 144.3 (129.3, 160.7) 16 (6, 31) 72 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.2, 4.2)
Escambia County 6 82.4 (66.7, 101.0) 64 (37, 67) 20 falling falling trend -4.2 (-6.0, -2.5)
Etowah County 6 102.8 (92.0, 114.5) 45 (29, 61) 71 falling falling trend -4.7 (-14.5, -3.2)
Fayette County 6 118.6 (92.2, 151.3) 32 (8, 65) 14 stable stable trend 0.2 (-4.8, 5.9)
Franklin County 6 112.8 (92.1, 137.1) 36 (13, 65) 21 rising rising trend 19.4 (2.5, 32.6)
Geneva County 6 114.6 (93.9, 139.2) 33 (12, 63) 22 stable stable trend -3.4 (-7.5, 0.6)
Greene County 6 168.4 (121.7, 229.0) 7 (1, 50) 10 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.7, 3.0)
Hale County 6 149.1 (115.9, 189.8) 15 (2, 49) 15 rising rising trend 6.3 (0.5, 14.7)
Henry County 6 151.0 (122.6, 185.3) 14 (2, 43) 21 rising rising trend 12.9 (1.0, 28.1)
Houston County 6 125.6 (113.7, 138.5) 28 (15, 43) 85 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.3, -1.5)
Jackson County 6 79.3 (66.6, 93.9) 65 (45, 67) 30 falling falling trend -4.7 (-14.0, -1.3)
Jefferson County 6 158.8 (153.1, 164.8) 10 (5, 16) 608 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.4, -0.1)
Lamar County 6 108.8 (82.4, 142.3) 39 (11, 67) 12 falling falling trend -5.6 (-15.4, -2.5)
Lauderdale County 6 84.4 (74.5, 95.5) 62 (44, 67) 54 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.2, -2.7)
Lawrence County 6 96.4 (78.9, 117.0) 51 (26, 67) 22 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.6, -0.2)
Lee County 6 114.0 (103.3, 125.5) 34 (21, 50) 90 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.6, 0.6)
Limestone County 6 96.1 (85.0, 108.3) 52 (35, 65) 58 falling falling trend -7.6 (-20.8, -4.1)
Lowndes County 6 205.9 (159.2, 263.8) 1 (1, 23) 14 stable stable trend -3.5 (-21.3, 0.3)
Macon County 6 204.9 (168.4, 247.8) 2 (1, 14) 24 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.2, 5.3)
Madison County 6 88.8 (83.1, 94.7) 57 (47, 65) 195 falling falling trend -4.8 (-18.3, -0.2)
Marengo County 6 141.2 (113.7, 174.3) 17 (3, 49) 19 stable stable trend -4.1 (-29.5, 0.7)
Marion County 6 100.1 (82.1, 121.4) 49 (23, 66) 22 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.4, 2.1)
Marshall County 6 87.7 (77.2, 99.2) 60 (41, 67) 53 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.2, 0.0)
Mobile County 6 93.7 (88.2, 99.3) 55 (43, 62) 238 falling falling trend -6.5 (-8.1, -5.5)
Monroe County 6 95.2 (73.4, 122.3) 53 (20, 67) 14 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.0, 1.0)
Montgomery County 6 158.1 (148.1, 168.7) 11 (4, 18) 194 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.6, 9.8)
Morgan County 6 121.4 (110.3, 133.3) 29 (17, 45) 92 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.8, -1.9)
Perry County 6 183.0 (133.7, 245.9) 4 (1, 47) 10 stable stable trend -2.5 (-6.4, 1.1)
Pickens County 6 101.4 (78.9, 129.1) 46 (16, 67) 14 falling falling trend -4.3 (-8.2, -0.6)
Pike County 6 128.2 (105.4, 154.8) 25 (7, 56) 23 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.4, 1.1)
Randolph County 6 100.1 (79.9, 124.8) 48 (20, 66) 18 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.8, 3.1)
Russell County 6 99.1 (83.7, 116.5) 50 (25, 66) 32 falling falling trend -3.2 (-5.7, -0.4)
Shelby County 6 137.1 (127.9, 146.7) 19 (11, 31) 177 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.2, 0.7)
St. Clair County 6 120.4 (107.6, 134.4) 30 (16, 47) 68 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.2)
Sumter County 6 189.2 (145.3, 243.4) 3 (1, 31) 14 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.0, 3.1)
Talladega County 6 105.4 (93.2, 119.0) 41 (25, 60) 57 stable stable trend 6.6 (-0.7, 13.6)
Tallapoosa County 6 129.0 (111.8, 148.6) 23 (10, 47) 43 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.8, 1.6)
Tuscaloosa County 6 132.0 (122.1, 142.5) 21 (13, 35) 142 falling falling trend -13.5 (-24.2, -1.8)
Walker County 6 128.5 (113.4, 145.3) 24 (11, 43) 56 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 1.6)
Washington County 6 114.0 (88.0, 146.4) 35 (8, 66) 14 falling falling trend -5.2 (-8.4, -2.3)
Wilcox County 6 164.1 (123.0, 216.0) 9 (1, 50) 12 stable stable trend -1.8 (-5.3, 1.9)
Winston County 6 94.8 (75.7, 118.0) 54 (24, 67) 18 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.3, 4.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/28/2024 11:33 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.

† 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. 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.
⋔ 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.


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 2022 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 2022 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 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2022 data.
Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.
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