Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Alabama by County

Prostate (All Stages^), 2013-2017

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 ascending
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 *** 121.1 (119.3, 123.0) N/A 3,490 stable stable trend 2.1 (-1.3, 5.6)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 *** 104.5 (104.3, 104.7) N/A 192,918 stable stable trend -0.4 (-5.5, 5.0)
Macon County 6 *** 200.9 (164.3, 243.9) 1 (1, 13) 23 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.6, 3.9)
Sumter County 6 *** 194.6 (150.4, 248.8) 2 (1, 25) 14 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.9, 3.0)
Lowndes County 6 *** 189.0 (144.3, 244.6) 3 (1, 34) 13 stable stable trend 0.8 (-3.0, 4.7)
Dallas County 6 *** 180.9 (157.2, 207.4) 4 (1, 14) 45 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.6, 1.7)
Perry County 6 *** 172.1 (126.1, 230.6) 5 (1, 50) 10 stable stable trend -2.0 (-6.0, 2.1)
Wilcox County 6 *** 157.5 (117.9, 207.6) 6 (1, 52) 11 stable stable trend -1.6 (-5.0, 2.0)
Marengo County 6 *** 155.6 (126.7, 189.8) 7 (1, 37) 21 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.1, 5.0)
Choctaw County 6 *** 154.5 (121.0, 196.0) 8 (1, 47) 15 stable stable trend -2.4 (-4.7, 0.0)
Jefferson County 6 *** 154.4 (148.5, 160.4) 9 (4, 16) 561 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.7)
Montgomery County 6 *** 154.1 (143.9, 164.9) 10 (4, 18) 178 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.0, 1.6)
Tuscaloosa County 6 *** 146.2 (135.2, 157.9) 11 (5, 24) 143 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.9, 2.2)
Barbour County 6 *** 146.2 (120.4, 176.2) 12 (2, 40) 24 stable stable trend -2.3 (-6.4, 2.0)
Shelby County 6 *** 146.0 (136.0, 156.7) 13 (5, 24) 168 stable stable trend 3.3 (-2.7, 9.7)
Chambers County 6 *** 138.9 (117.6, 163.3) 14 (4, 40) 32 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.3, 3.2)
Clay County 6 *** 138.5 (106.3, 178.6) 15 (2, 60) 13 stable stable trend 1.5 (-3.1, 6.3)
Walker County 6 *** 137.3 (121.4, 154.8) 16 (5, 36) 58 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.3, 2.1)
Clarke County 6 *** 134.6 (109.8, 163.8) 17 (4, 52) 22 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.3, 1.0)
Morgan County 6 *** 134.2 (122.2, 147.0) 18 (9, 34) 97 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.8, -1.4)
Autauga County 6 *** 133.2 (115.0, 153.7) 19 (5, 42) 40 stable stable trend 17.3 (-0.7, 38.6)
Houston County 6 *** 131.9 (119.4, 145.5) 20 (9, 37) 85 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.5, -1.2)
Elmore County 6 *** 130.3 (115.2, 146.8) 21 (8, 41) 59 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.0, 3.3)
Hale County 6 *** 129.9 (98.2, 169.3) 22 (2, 63) 13 stable stable trend -2.1 (-6.6, 2.5)
Fayette County 6 *** 129.7 (102.4, 163.0) 23 (4, 60) 16 stable stable trend 1.7 (-2.3, 5.9)
Greene County 6 *** 129.0 (90.0, 181.3) 24 (1, 67) 8 stable stable trend -3.4 (-6.9, 0.3)
Coffee County 6 *** 125.0 (107.5, 144.6) 25 (9, 49) 38 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.6, -0.4)
Bullock County 6 *** 124.5 (87.7, 172.3) 26 (3, 67) 8 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.8, 3.9)
Dale County 6 *** 123.5 (106.1, 143.2) 27 (9, 50) 37 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.2, 0.6)
Calhoun County 6 *** 119.6 (107.9, 132.3) 28 (15, 45) 83 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.9, 0.6)
Henry County 6 *** 117.6 (92.3, 149.0) 29 (6, 65) 16 falling falling trend -5.4 (-8.4, -2.4)
Etowah County 6 *** 116.5 (104.8, 129.2) 30 (17, 49) 77 falling falling trend -4.6 (-6.9, -2.2)
Butler County 6 *** 116.3 (91.2, 147.0) 31 (6, 64) 15 stable stable trend 0.3 (-3.6, 4.4)
Chilton County 6 *** 115.3 (97.2, 135.9) 32 (12, 59) 31 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.1, -0.3)
St. Clair County 6 *** 115.0 (101.9, 129.5) 33 (16, 52) 60 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.1, 1.4)
Monroe County 6 *** 112.9 (89.0, 142.0) 34 (9, 65) 16 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.0, 1.8)
Bibb County 6 *** 112.7 (88.2, 142.2) 35 (8, 66) 16 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.7, -1.5)
Pike County 6 *** 112.6 (90.9, 138.1) 36 (9, 65) 20 falling falling trend -3.0 (-5.1, -0.9)
Lee County 6 *** 111.9 (100.2, 124.6) 37 (20, 53) 73 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.8, -0.2)
Randolph County 6 *** 111.5 (88.6, 139.1) 38 (11, 66) 18 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.2, 3.2)
Washington County 6 *** 106.2 (80.4, 138.6) 39 (9, 67) 12 falling falling trend -6.1 (-9.2, -2.9)
Tallapoosa County 6 *** 105.4 (89.7, 123.6) 40 (19, 63) 34 stable stable trend -2.5 (-4.9, 0.0)
Crenshaw County 6 *** 104.2 (75.7, 140.9) 41 (8, 67) 9 stable stable trend -2.1 (-6.1, 2.0)
Limestone County 6 *** 104.1 (91.8, 117.6) 42 (25, 60) 56 falling falling trend -8.6 (-14.4, -2.4)
Mobile County 6 *** 103.4 (97.5, 109.6) 43 (32, 54) 246 falling falling trend -7.1 (-8.0, -6.1)
Russell County 6 *** 102.1 (86.2, 120.2) 44 (21, 64) 31 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.8, -0.1)
Cleburne County 6 *** 101.2 (75.2, 134.3) 45 (11, 67) 11 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.5, 3.0)
Marion County 6 *** 100.7 (82.3, 122.5) 46 (18, 66) 22 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.6, 1.1)
Talladega County 6 *** 99.0 (87.0, 112.4) 47 (29, 64) 52 falling falling trend -9.2 (-12.6, -5.6)
Lamar County 6 *** 98.3 (74.0, 129.8) 48 (15, 67) 11 stable stable trend -1.6 (-6.2, 3.2)
Lawrence County 6 *** 98.0 (79.5, 119.7) 49 (22, 67) 21 stable stable trend -3.0 (-6.1, 0.3)
Blount County 6 *** 96.9 (83.2, 112.4) 50 (26, 66) 37 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.9, 1.0)
Pickens County 6 *** 96.8 (74.1, 124.9) 51 (17, 67) 13 stable stable trend -4.2 (-8.5, 0.3)
Madison County 6 *** 96.4 (90.2, 102.8) 52 (38, 60) 194 stable stable trend 2.1 (-8.6, 14.0)
Escambia County 6 *** 95.1 (78.2, 114.8) 53 (25, 67) 23 falling falling trend -4.1 (-6.4, -1.9)
Winston County 6 *** 94.1 (75.2, 117.2) 54 (22, 67) 18 stable stable trend 0.3 (-3.6, 4.2)
Covington County 6 *** 92.1 (76.0, 110.9) 55 (27, 67) 24 stable stable trend -0.1 (-4.9, 5.0)
Colbert County 6 *** 89.7 (76.3, 105.1) 56 (34, 67) 33 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.7, 4.4)
Geneva County 6 *** 89.1 (70.8, 111.4) 57 (26, 67) 17 stable stable trend 10.0 (-24.7, 60.7)
Coosa County 6 *** 88.4 (61.6, 125.0) 58 (14, 67) 8 stable stable trend -2.4 (-5.5, 0.7)
Baldwin County 6 *** 88.4 (81.5, 95.7) 59 (44, 66) 128 falling falling trend -5.0 (-6.8, -3.2)
Lauderdale County 6 *** 87.8 (77.3, 99.4) 60 (40, 67) 53 falling falling trend -4.2 (-5.8, -2.7)
Marshall County 6 *** 86.8 (76.2, 98.6) 61 (40, 67) 51 falling falling trend -3.0 (-5.4, -0.5)
DeKalb County 6 *** 83.1 (71.3, 96.5) 62 (41, 67) 37 falling falling trend -9.1 (-12.6, -5.5)
Cullman County 6 *** 82.3 (71.4, 94.4) 63 (44, 67) 44 stable stable trend -2.3 (-4.7, 0.1)
Franklin County 6 *** 80.8 (63.0, 102.3) 64 (32, 67) 15 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.4, 2.1)
Cherokee County 6 *** 80.8 (64.3, 101.1) 65 (37, 67) 18 falling falling trend -5.5 (-8.2, -2.6)
Conecuh County 6 *** 79.5 (55.7, 111.9) 66 (24, 67) 8 stable stable trend -3.7 (-8.2, 1.0)
Jackson County 6 *** 74.9 (62.6, 89.3) 67 (48, 67) 28 falling falling trend -8.2 (-15.0, -0.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 06/22/2021 10:40 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.

⋔ 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 1969-2017 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 (2001-2017) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2019 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database (2001-2017) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2019 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 1969-2017 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2019 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