Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Alabama by County

Kidney & Renal Pelvis (All Stages^), 2017-2021

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, 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 18.5 (18.0, 19.0) N/A 1,149 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.5, 2.3)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 17.3 (17.2, 17.4) N/A 67,373 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Lamar County 6 Rural 33.9 (22.3, 49.8) 1 (1, 48) 6
*
*
Crenshaw County 6 Rural 33.3 (21.4, 49.6) 2 (1, 50) 6 stable stable trend 3.6 (-1.4, 9.4)
Lowndes County 6 Urban 26.5 (15.6, 42.8) 3 (1, 60) 4
*
*
Chambers County 6 Rural 25.7 (19.3, 33.7) 4 (1, 49) 12 rising rising trend 5.9 (1.6, 12.3)
Fayette County 6 Rural 24.6 (15.9, 36.7) 5 (1, 59) 6 stable stable trend 2.6 (-1.5, 7.2)
Colbert County 6 Urban 24.3 (19.6, 29.9) 6 (1, 43) 20 rising rising trend 3.8 (1.0, 7.2)
Calhoun County 6 Urban 23.5 (19.9, 27.6) 7 (2, 38) 33 stable stable trend 12.5 (-4.8, 31.2)
Barbour County 6 Rural 23.4 (16.7, 32.3) 8 (1, 57) 8 stable stable trend 4.3 (-1.8, 12.2)
Winston County 6 Rural 22.7 (15.5, 32.3) 9 (1, 59) 7
*
*
Clay County 6 Rural 22.4 (13.5, 35.5) 10 (1, 60) 4 stable stable trend 2.5 (-3.3, 9.8)
Washington County 6 Rural 22.3 (13.5, 34.9) 11 (1, 60) 4
*
*
Escambia County 6 Rural 22.3 (16.5, 29.6) 12 (1, 57) 10 stable stable trend 1.2 (-3.0, 5.8)
Tallapoosa County 6 Rural 22.2 (16.7, 29.0) 13 (1, 55) 13 stable stable trend 2.2 (-1.3, 6.1)
Houston County 6 Urban 22.1 (18.5, 26.3) 14 (3, 45) 28 stable stable trend 2.2 (-0.6, 5.6)
Hale County 6 Urban 22.1 (13.1, 35.0) 15 (1, 60) 4 stable stable trend 2.1 (-2.7, 7.7)
Franklin County 6 Rural 21.4 (15.0, 29.7) 16 (1, 59) 8 stable stable trend 1.7 (-2.1, 5.9)
Marengo County 6 Rural 21.1 (13.5, 31.7) 17 (1, 60) 5 stable stable trend 3.8 (-0.6, 9.1)
Walker County 6 Urban 20.9 (16.6, 26.0) 18 (3, 54) 18 stable stable trend 1.6 (0.0, 3.3)
Pickens County 6 Urban 20.8 (13.6, 30.9) 19 (1, 60) 6 stable stable trend 3.2 (-3.3, 11.0)
Mobile County 6 Urban 20.8 (19.0, 22.7) 20 (8, 39) 103 rising rising trend 2.7 (1.4, 4.2)
Coffee County 6 Rural 20.6 (15.9, 26.5) 21 (3, 56) 13 stable stable trend 2.6 (-0.6, 6.5)
Henry County 6 Urban 20.6 (13.4, 30.9) 22 (1, 60) 6 stable stable trend 3.2 (-2.2, 10.4)
Cherokee County 6 Rural 20.3 (13.6, 29.5) 23 (1, 60) 7 stable stable trend 0.7 (-3.1, 4.8)
Bibb County 6 Urban 20.2 (13.5, 29.4) 24 (2, 60) 6 falling falling trend -18.2 (-28.5, -11.5)
Lauderdale County 6 Urban 20.0 (16.4, 24.1) 25 (5, 54) 24 stable stable trend 2.4 (-0.2, 5.2)
Limestone County 6 Urban 19.9 (16.4, 23.9) 26 (6, 53) 24 stable stable trend 2.5 (0.0, 5.6)
St. Clair County 6 Urban 19.7 (16.2, 23.9) 27 (5, 55) 23 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.0, 4.0)
Lawrence County 6 Urban 19.7 (14.2, 26.8) 28 (3, 60) 9 rising rising trend 7.5 (1.4, 24.2)
Morgan County 6 Urban 19.5 (16.4, 23.1) 29 (7, 53) 30 stable stable trend 1.6 (0.0, 3.4)
Autauga County 6 Urban 19.5 (15.1, 24.9) 30 (4, 58) 14 stable stable trend 2.2 (-1.8, 7.2)
Madison County 6 Urban 19.5 (17.7, 21.5) 31 (12, 46) 89 rising rising trend 2.1 (1.3, 3.2)
Chilton County 6 Urban 18.9 (13.9, 25.2) 32 (4, 60) 10 stable stable trend -0.4 (-4.1, 3.5)
Sumter County 6 Rural 18.5 (10.5, 31.5) 33 (1, 60) 3
*
*
Jackson County 6 Rural 18.5 (14.2, 23.8) 34 (5, 59) 14 stable stable trend -3.6 (-31.2, 4.5)
Butler County 6 Rural 18.5 (11.1, 29.0) 35 (2, 60) 4
*
*
Elmore County 6 Urban 18.5 (14.8, 22.8) 36 (7, 58) 19 stable stable trend 0.1 (-17.6, 4.6)
Cullman County 6 Rural 18.4 (14.7, 22.7) 37 (8, 58) 20 rising rising trend 3.4 (0.4, 7.0)
Montgomery County 6 Urban 18.3 (16.0, 20.9) 38 (14, 54) 48 rising rising trend 2.5 (0.9, 4.4)
Baldwin County 6 Urban 18.2 (16.0, 20.5) 39 (15, 53) 58 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.1, 2.7)
Clarke County 6 Rural 18.1 (12.1, 26.4) 40 (3, 60) 6 stable stable trend 2.7 (-1.7, 7.6)
Talladega County 6 Rural 18.0 (14.4, 22.2) 41 (8, 58) 19 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.3, 3.2)
Macon County 6 Urban 17.8 (10.8, 28.1) 42 (2, 60) 4
*
*
Etowah County 6 Urban 17.7 (14.6, 21.2) 43 (12, 58) 25 rising rising trend 2.5 (0.4, 4.8)
Dallas County 6 Rural 17.3 (12.3, 23.8) 44 (5, 60) 9 stable stable trend -19.5 (-32.6, 0.8)
Marion County 6 Rural 17.2 (12.0, 24.3) 45 (5, 60) 7 rising rising trend 4.1 (0.5, 8.5)
Tuscaloosa County 6 Urban 17.0 (14.7, 19.6) 46 (19, 57) 40 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.2, 2.5)
Jefferson County 6 Urban 16.9 (15.6, 18.2) 47 (28, 54) 139 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.0, 1.7)
DeKalb County 6 Rural 16.6 (12.9, 21.1) 48 (10, 60) 15 stable stable trend 2.5 (-2.8, 8.8)
Choctaw County 6 Rural 16.4 (9.4, 27.8) 49 (2, 60) 3
*
*
Covington County 6 Rural 16.3 (11.5, 22.6) 50 (7, 60) 8 stable stable trend -15.6 (-36.8, 0.2)
Pike County 6 Rural 16.1 (10.8, 23.3) 51 (5, 60) 6 stable stable trend 2.8 (-1.4, 8.4)
Marshall County 6 Rural 16.0 (12.8, 19.9) 52 (16, 60) 18 stable stable trend -0.9 (-8.2, 1.5)
Randolph County 6 Rural 15.7 (9.5, 24.6) 53 (3, 60) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-7.7, 6.9)
Blount County 6 Urban 15.0 (11.2, 19.8) 54 (15, 60) 11 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.5, 2.1)
Russell County 6 Urban 14.8 (10.9, 19.6) 55 (16, 60) 10 stable stable trend 0.7 (-3.3, 5.2)
Monroe County 6 Rural 14.7 (9.3, 22.8) 56 (6, 60) 5 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.5, 5.8)
Shelby County 6 Urban 14.7 (12.7, 17.0) 57 (35, 60) 39 stable stable trend -0.2 (-6.7, 2.1)
Geneva County 6 Urban 14.3 (9.6, 21.0) 58 (12, 60) 6 stable stable trend -3.9 (-26.8, 2.2)
Lee County 6 Urban 13.0 (10.6, 15.7) 59 (41, 60) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.9, 2.4)
Dale County 6 Rural 12.5 (8.9, 17.3) 60 (29, 60) 8 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.7, 6.1)
Bullock County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cleburne County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Conecuh County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Coosa County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perry County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wilcox County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/08/2024 12:59 am.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.

Data cannot be shown for the following areas. For more information on what areas are suppressed or not available, please refer to the table.
Bullock, Cleburne, Conecuh, Coosa, Greene, Perry, Wilcox

† 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.
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.
* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).
Source: SEER and NPCR data. For more specific information please see the table.

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