Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Alabama by County

Prostate (All Stages^), 2017-2021

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Rate

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
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 N/A 116.6 (114.9, 118.4) N/A 3,691 falling falling trend -4.3 (-6.5, -2.3)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 113.2 (113.0, 113.4) N/A 224,883 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.4, 3.7)
Lowndes County 6 Urban 202.4 (157.0, 258.4) 1 (1, 20) 14 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.3, 3.7)
Macon County 6 Urban 196.2 (160.9, 237.6) 2 (1, 16) 24 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.3, 4.6)
Greene County 6 Urban 181.1 (132.2, 244.3) 3 (1, 48) 10 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.9, 2.3)
Wilcox County 6 Rural 180.8 (136.3, 236.3) 4 (1, 41) 12 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.3, 2.1)
Bullock County 6 Rural 179.4 (134.5, 235.0) 5 (1, 40) 12 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.3, 4.0)
Barbour County 6 Rural 178.1 (150.6, 209.6) 6 (1, 20) 31 stable stable trend -1.6 (-5.5, 2.4)
Sumter County 6 Rural 172.8 (130.9, 225.2) 7 (1, 38) 13 stable stable trend -16.6 (-34.1, 0.5)
Perry County 6 Rural 157.8 (113.2, 215.9) 8 (1, 60) 9 stable stable trend -3.1 (-7.0, 0.3)
Montgomery County 6 Urban 156.5 (146.5, 166.9) 9 (4, 19) 196 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.4, 8.1)
Choctaw County 6 Rural 156.3 (123.4, 197.3) 10 (1, 45) 16 stable stable trend -1.4 (-13.0, 0.2)
Jefferson County 6 Urban 150.6 (145.1, 156.3) 11 (6, 18) 595 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.5)
Autauga County 6 Urban 146.9 (129.1, 166.6) 12 (4, 31) 51 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.1, 3.9)
Elmore County 6 Urban 145.9 (131.1, 162.0) 13 (5, 26) 77 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.2, 3.5)
Hale County 6 Urban 145.2 (111.6, 186.6) 14 (1, 56) 14 stable stable trend 4.4 (-0.4, 11.0)
Henry County 6 Urban 145.2 (117.6, 178.5) 15 (2, 47) 20 falling falling trend -3.7 (-6.5, -1.1)
Calhoun County 6 Urban 143.3 (130.7, 156.9) 16 (6, 27) 103 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.7, 1.9)
Butler County 6 Rural 142.0 (114.0, 175.6) 17 (2, 51) 19 stable stable trend -0.2 (-4.0, 3.7)
Dallas County 6 Rural 132.4 (112.4, 155.4) 18 (6, 48) 34 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.6, 0.4)
Clarke County 6 Rural 131.5 (107.3, 160.2) 19 (5, 54) 22 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 1.1)
Pike County 6 Rural 130.6 (107.5, 157.4) 20 (5, 54) 23 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.9, 0.6)
Crenshaw County 6 Rural 130.3 (99.1, 169.5) 21 (3, 63) 13 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.3, 2.3)
Tallapoosa County 6 Rural 129.0 (112.2, 148.1) 22 (8, 46) 45 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.8, 1.2)
Washington County 6 Rural 128.7 (100.4, 163.5) 23 (5, 61) 15 stable stable trend 7.2 (-3.6, 26.6)
Chambers County 6 Rural 128.2 (108.8, 150.5) 24 (7, 50) 33 falling falling trend -3.7 (-22.6, -0.8)
Marengo County 6 Rural 125.3 (99.3, 156.8) 25 (6, 60) 17 falling falling trend -7.0 (-26.9, -2.1)
Morgan County 6 Urban 123.7 (112.7, 135.5) 26 (14, 43) 97 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.4, -1.6)
Shelby County 6 Urban 122.0 (113.6, 131.0) 27 (18, 41) 164 falling falling trend -17.6 (-22.4, -14.6)
Cleburne County 6 Rural 121.3 (93.1, 156.4) 28 (5, 64) 13 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.6, 5.3)
Randolph County 6 Rural 118.3 (95.6, 145.5) 29 (8, 62) 20 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.9, 2.8)
Houston County 6 Urban 118.2 (106.8, 130.6) 30 (16, 49) 82 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.2, -1.6)
Conecuh County 6 Rural 115.8 (85.9, 154.7) 31 (6, 66) 11 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.4, 1.8)
Geneva County 6 Urban 112.7 (92.2, 136.9) 32 (13, 63) 22 falling falling trend -3.8 (-7.4, -0.6)
St. Clair County 6 Urban 111.5 (99.3, 124.9) 33 (19, 56) 65 falling falling trend -10.6 (-18.4, -1.6)
Franklin County 6 Rural 110.9 (90.6, 134.6) 34 (13, 65) 22 stable stable trend 0.5 (-3.4, 4.5)
Walker County 6 Urban 110.9 (97.2, 126.1) 35 (19, 58) 50 falling falling trend -12.9 (-23.2, -1.3)
Chilton County 6 Urban 110.4 (93.0, 130.3) 36 (15, 61) 30 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.3, -0.7)
Tuscaloosa County 6 Urban 110.1 (101.5, 119.3) 37 (24, 52) 130 falling falling trend -16.3 (-29.4, -3.1)
Colbert County 6 Urban 110.0 (95.5, 126.3) 38 (18, 59) 43 rising rising trend 2.4 (0.8, 4.3)
Coffee County 6 Rural 109.4 (93.5, 127.3) 39 (17, 60) 36 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.2, -1.1)
Lee County 6 Urban 108.9 (98.8, 119.7) 40 (23, 55) 93 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.3, 0.4)
Pickens County 6 Urban 108.7 (85.1, 137.7) 41 (11, 66) 15 falling falling trend -4.3 (-7.9, -1.2)
Lawrence County 6 Urban 107.8 (89.3, 129.4) 42 (15, 64) 25 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.3, 0.3)
Lamar County 6 Rural 105.8 (79.4, 139.5) 43 (10, 66) 11 falling falling trend -4.9 (-19.0, -1.8)
Talladega County 6 Rural 104.3 (92.2, 117.7) 44 (24, 61) 58 stable stable trend -0.4 (-4.5, 8.6)
Clay County 6 Rural 104.2 (78.3, 137.3) 45 (11, 66) 11 falling falling trend -6.8 (-30.9, -1.5)
Etowah County 6 Urban 103.1 (92.5, 114.8) 46 (26, 61) 73 stable stable trend 6.2 (-3.2, 13.7)
Marion County 6 Rural 102.5 (84.1, 124.3) 47 (19, 66) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.5, 1.8)
Russell County 6 Urban 100.8 (85.3, 118.3) 48 (21, 65) 33 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.9, -1.0)
Bibb County 6 Urban 100.8 (79.0, 127.2) 49 (17, 66) 15 falling falling trend -3.7 (-17.1, -2.0)
Monroe County 6 Rural 99.8 (77.4, 127.5) 50 (17, 66) 15 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.8, 0.9)
Dale County 6 Rural 98.7 (83.6, 115.9) 51 (26, 66) 32 falling falling trend -5.2 (-21.7, -2.7)
Coosa County 6 Rural 97.7 (72.2, 132.7) 52 (15, 67) 10 falling falling trend -2.8 (-5.1, -0.6)
Limestone County 6 Urban 97.4 (86.6, 109.3) 53 (30, 64) 63 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.2, -0.1)
Mobile County 6 Urban 97.1 (91.6, 102.8) 54 (40, 60) 250 stable stable trend 6.6 (-1.1, 10.8)
Fayette County 6 Rural 96.3 (72.8, 126.2) 55 (17, 67) 12 stable stable trend -0.5 (-5.1, 4.4)
Cherokee County 6 Rural 93.1 (75.7, 114.4) 56 (26, 66) 21 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.9, -0.7)
Baldwin County 6 Urban 91.7 (85.3, 98.5) 57 (44, 63) 158 stable stable trend 1.6 (-3.6, 10.8)
Winston County 6 Rural 90.6 (71.6, 113.8) 58 (25, 67) 17 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.4, 3.2)
Lauderdale County 6 Urban 89.6 (79.4, 100.9) 59 (40, 66) 58 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.2, -2.2)
Covington County 6 Rural 88.2 (72.5, 106.6) 60 (31, 66) 24 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.2, 8.8)
Marshall County 6 Rural 86.8 (76.4, 98.3) 61 (43, 66) 53 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.0, -0.4)
DeKalb County 6 Rural 85.1 (73.4, 98.2) 62 (42, 66) 40 stable stable trend 0.0 (-5.9, 11.0)
Madison County 6 Urban 82.7 (77.3, 88.3) 63 (54, 66) 193 falling falling trend -4.9 (-18.8, -2.7)
Jackson County 6 Rural 80.9 (68.3, 95.5) 64 (44, 67) 31 falling falling trend -4.5 (-12.2, -1.6)
Blount County 6 Urban 77.6 (65.6, 91.3) 65 (49, 67) 31 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.5, 0.2)
Escambia County 6 Rural 77.2 (61.9, 95.5) 66 (43, 67) 18 falling falling trend -6.0 (-21.4, -3.2)
Cullman County 6 Rural 60.1 (51.5, 69.8) 67 (65, 67) 37 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.4, -1.2)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/09/2024 8:55 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