Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Alabama by County

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (All Stages^), 2017-2021

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Ruralurban
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban ascending
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 N/A 14.4 (13.9, 14.8) N/A 889 falling falling trend -4.5 (-7.6, -1.2)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 18.5 (18.4, 18.6) N/A 71,542 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.5)
Autauga County 6 Urban 13.5 (9.9, 18.1) 32 (3, 51) 9 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.3, 2.3)
Baldwin County 6 Urban 16.4 (14.4, 18.7) 11 (3, 34) 52 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.7, 2.6)
Bibb County 6 Urban 15.2 (9.5, 23.5) 23 (1, 51) 4 stable stable trend -3.4 (-7.5, 0.6)
Blount County 6 Urban 13.8 (10.3, 18.3) 28 (3, 50) 11 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.7, 1.3)
Calhoun County 6 Urban 16.2 (13.4, 19.5) 13 (2, 42) 24 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.2, 1.6)
Chilton County 6 Urban 9.1 (5.8, 13.5) 51 (21, 51) 5 stable stable trend -1.8 (-5.0, 1.6)
Colbert County 6 Urban 11.5 (8.2, 15.7) 47 (8, 51) 9 falling falling trend -3.8 (-7.6, -0.2)
Elmore County 6 Urban 13.4 (10.3, 17.0) 35 (5, 50) 14 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.7, 2.5)
Etowah County 6 Urban 14.3 (11.6, 17.6) 27 (4, 48) 20 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.4, 0.9)
Geneva County 6 Urban 12.4 (7.7, 19.2) 42 (2, 51) 5 stable stable trend -4.0 (-9.4, 0.4)
Houston County 6 Urban 16.5 (13.5, 20.0) 10 (1, 42) 22 stable stable trend 4.0 (-7.6, 16.7)
Jefferson County 6 Urban 13.4 (12.2, 14.6) 34 (19, 44) 106 stable stable trend -2.1 (-11.9, 1.2)
Lauderdale County 6 Urban 13.3 (10.5, 16.6) 36 (7, 49) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.4, 1.9)
Lawrence County 6 Urban 19.0 (13.5, 26.1) 3 (1, 45) 8 stable stable trend 1.7 (-2.8, 7.1)
Lee County 6 Urban 11.1 (8.9, 13.7) 48 (23, 51) 18 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.5, 0.2)
Limestone County 6 Urban 16.6 (13.4, 20.3) 8 (1, 42) 20 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.3, 1.1)
Macon County 6 Urban 16.6 (9.6, 26.9) 9 (1, 51) 4 stable stable trend 0.0 (-6.6, 7.4)
Madison County 6 Urban 15.1 (13.5, 16.9) 24 (7, 38) 67 falling falling trend -13.2 (-23.1, -2.5)
Mobile County 6 Urban 14.9 (13.3, 16.5) 26 (8, 39) 74 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.0, 1.5)
Montgomery County 6 Urban 15.9 (13.7, 18.3) 17 (3, 38) 41 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.7, 3.6)
Morgan County 6 Urban 15.7 (13.0, 18.9) 20 (2, 43) 24 falling falling trend -18.4 (-35.1, -0.8)
Pickens County 6 Urban 15.5 (9.3, 24.6) 21 (1, 51) 4
*
*
Russell County 6 Urban 13.2 (9.5, 18.0) 37 (3, 51) 9 stable stable trend 1.3 (-3.8, 7.2)
Shelby County 6 Urban 13.7 (11.7, 16.0) 30 (9, 46) 35 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.7, -0.3)
St. Clair County 6 Urban 11.7 (9.0, 15.0) 46 (14, 51) 13 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.1, -0.2)
Tuscaloosa County 6 Urban 15.9 (13.6, 18.5) 16 (3, 40) 36 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.1, 0.9)
Walker County 6 Urban 17.8 (13.9, 22.4) 5 (1, 40) 16 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.3, 1.5)
Barbour County 6 Rural 15.4 (10.2, 22.7) 22 (1, 51) 6 stable stable trend 0.3 (-4.8, 6.2)
Butler County 6 Rural 12.6 (7.2, 20.8) 41 (1, 51) 3
*
*
Chambers County 6 Rural 16.1 (11.3, 22.5) 15 (1, 50) 8 stable stable trend 0.7 (-3.0, 4.8)
Cherokee County 6 Rural 12.9 (8.2, 19.7) 40 (2, 51) 5 stable stable trend -1.1 (-6.9, 5.1)
Clarke County 6 Rural 9.1 (5.3, 15.2) 50 (13, 51) 3 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.8, 3.2)
Cleburne County 6 Rural 16.4 (9.1, 27.5) 12 (1, 51) 3 stable stable trend 1.3 (-4.0, 7.5)
Coffee County 6 Rural 18.2 (13.9, 23.6) 4 (1, 42) 12 stable stable trend 0.7 (-2.1, 4.1)
Conecuh County 6 Rural 20.8 (11.2, 35.7) 1 (1, 51) 3
*
*
Covington County 6 Rural 12.4 (8.4, 17.8) 43 (4, 51) 7 stable stable trend -2.6 (-7.4, 1.7)
Cullman County 6 Rural 13.6 (10.8, 17.0) 31 (6, 49) 17 stable stable trend -2.4 (-5.0, 0.2)
Dale County 6 Rural 12.9 (9.1, 17.9) 39 (3, 51) 8 stable stable trend -2.2 (-6.5, 2.1)
Dallas County 6 Rural 9.3 (5.8, 14.1) 49 (17, 51) 5 stable stable trend -0.1 (-4.0, 3.8)
DeKalb County 6 Rural 13.8 (10.4, 18.0) 29 (4, 50) 12 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.9, 1.5)
Escambia County 6 Rural 14.9 (10.3, 21.1) 25 (1, 51) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.3, 1.7)
Fayette County 6 Rural 17.6 (10.6, 27.9) 6 (1, 51) 4 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.0, 3.9)
Franklin County 6 Rural 12.1 (7.6, 18.4) 44 (3, 51) 5 stable stable trend -0.6 (-5.3, 4.8)
Jackson County 6 Rural 11.8 (8.5, 16.2) 45 (7, 51) 9 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.3, 1.5)
Marion County 6 Rural 15.7 (11.0, 22.2) 19 (1, 50) 7 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.7, 4.1)
Marshall County 6 Rural 15.8 (12.7, 19.4) 18 (2, 44) 19 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.3, 1.0)
Pike County 6 Rural 19.1 (13.0, 27.3) 2 (1, 48) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.5, 2.0)
Randolph County 6 Rural 12.9 (7.6, 20.8) 38 (1, 51) 4
*
*
Talladega County 6 Rural 13.4 (10.3, 17.1) 33 (5, 50) 14 stable stable trend -4.6 (-36.8, 4.4)
Tallapoosa County 6 Rural 16.2 (11.7, 21.9) 14 (1, 48) 10 stable stable trend 0.9 (-3.8, 6.0)
Winston County 6 Rural 17.5 (11.1, 26.3) 7 (1, 50) 5 stable stable trend -2.4 (-5.7, 0.6)
Bullock County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Choctaw County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Coosa County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Crenshaw County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hale County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Henry County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lamar County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lowndes County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Marengo County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Monroe County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perry County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sumter County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wilcox County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/06/2024 4:27 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, Choctaw, Clay, Coosa, Crenshaw, Greene, Hale, Henry, Lamar, Lowndes, Marengo, Monroe, Perry, Sumter, Washington, 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