Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Kentucky by County

Lung & Bronchus (All Stages^), 2016-2020

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

Sorted by Recentaapc
County
 sort alphabetically by name 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 ascending
Kentucky 7 84.4 (83.3, 85.5) N/A 4,875 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.5)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 54.0 (53.9, 54.1) N/A 215,307 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.7)
Christian County 7 87.7 (77.8, 98.4) 67 (29, 105) 59 stable stable trend 7.1 (-0.4, 13.3)
Cumberland County 7 96.9 (72.4, 128.7) 43 (1, 117) 11 stable stable trend 2.0 (-1.2, 6.0)
Monroe County 7 108.2 (86.4, 134.6) 21 (1, 104) 17 stable stable trend 1.6 (-2.1, 6.0)
Bath County 7 100.8 (80.0, 125.8) 36 (2, 110) 17 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.7, 3.6)
Owsley County 7 141.9 (102.4, 193.5) 1 (1, 92) 9 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.5, 4.4)
Larue County 7 86.7 (69.2, 107.8) 71 (12, 117) 17 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.2, 3.9)
Crittenden County 7 90.3 (69.1, 117.0) 57 (5, 118) 13 stable stable trend 1.1 (-10.4, 15.4)
Fleming County 7 100.8 (82.0, 123.1) 35 (2, 106) 21 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.0, 4.7)
Livingston County 7 119.2 (94.7, 149.3) 9 (1, 90) 18 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.8, 4.3)
Trimble County 7 87.9 (65.8, 116.1) 66 (4, 119) 11 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.9, 4.7)
Harrison County 7 109.2 (91.8, 129.3) 20 (2, 86) 29 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.9, 3.0)
Hancock County 7 77.8 (57.0, 104.7) 97 (9, 119) 9 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.8, 5.1)
Nicholas County 7 72.9 (50.7, 102.4) 108 (14, 119) 7 stable stable trend 0.8 (-3.0, 5.1)
Green County 7 79.6 (62.0, 101.6) 91 (17, 119) 14 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.1, 2.8)
Hart County 7 104.8 (87.4, 125.0) 29 (2, 97) 27 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.9, 2.6)
Knott County 7 87.4 (70.3, 108.0) 68 (9, 116) 19 stable stable trend 0.7 (-10.3, 13.0)
Montgomery County 7 114.8 (99.5, 131.9) 14 (1, 62) 42 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.9, 2.5)
Carroll County 7 131.5 (105.5, 162.4) 2 (1, 62) 18 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.6, 3.1)
Jackson County 7 100.7 (80.9, 124.4) 37 (2, 112) 19 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.1, 3.7)
Barren County 7 100.3 (89.2, 112.5) 39 (9, 81) 61 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.4)
Breathitt County 7 116.7 (94.8, 142.6) 10 (1, 85) 21 stable stable trend 0.5 (-3.3, 4.7)
Breckinridge County 7 92.3 (77.6, 109.5) 50 (11, 109) 29 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.3, 2.7)
Marion County 7 93.8 (77.3, 113.1) 48 (7, 111) 24 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.6, 2.5)
Rockcastle County 7 116.4 (97.6, 138.2) 11 (1, 67) 28 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.1, 1.8)
Washington County 7 74.6 (56.5, 97.1) 103 (25, 119) 12 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.6, 3.6)
Metcalfe County 7 107.0 (84.7, 134.2) 24 (1, 108) 16 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.0, 2.6)
Pendleton County 7 114.7 (93.4, 139.7) 15 (1, 90) 22 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.9, 2.6)
Todd County 7 96.2 (75.3, 121.4) 44 (2, 115) 15 stable stable trend 0.2 (-3.1, 3.7)
Adair County 7 102.7 (86.0, 122.0) 32 (3, 101) 28 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.0, 2.5)
Elliott County 7 86.4 (63.3, 116.4) 72 (4, 119) 10 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.3, 4.3)
Lewis County 7 88.3 (70.5, 109.8) 62 (10, 117) 18 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.0, 2.3)
Martin County 7 126.4 (101.4, 156.2) 4 (1, 77) 19 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.9, 2.4)
Morgan County 7 81.9 (63.7, 104.2) 86 (13, 119) 15 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.8, 2.0)
Calloway County 7 77.5 (66.8, 89.7) 98 (44, 117) 39 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.8, 2.0)
McLean County 7 100.4 (77.9, 128.4) 38 (1, 113) 14 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.5, 2.6)
Bourbon County 7 94.5 (79.0, 112.5) 47 (9, 109) 27 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.7, 2.8)
Laurel County 7 95.4 (85.8, 105.8) 46 (16, 92) 76 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.6)
Meade County 7 103.9 (88.8, 120.9) 31 (3, 87) 36 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.9, 2.0)
Powell County 7 120.7 (97.1, 148.6) 7 (1, 78) 19 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.6, 3.7)
Whitley County 7 113.0 (99.5, 127.9) 16 (2, 60) 52 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.0, 1.9)
Clay County 7 119.7 (101.0, 141.2) 8 (1, 59) 30 stable stable trend -0.2 (-13.4, 5.1)
Grant County 7 96.0 (80.5, 113.8) 45 (8, 105) 28 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.1, 1.9)
Pike County 7 109.3 (99.4, 120.0) 19 (6, 55) 95 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.1)
Russell County 7 107.4 (90.3, 127.2) 23 (2, 92) 29 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.7, 1.3)
Johnson County 7 112.2 (96.2, 130.4) 18 (1, 69) 37 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.0)
Leslie County 7 115.7 (91.9, 144.6) 13 (1, 93) 17 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.0, 2.5)
Owen County 7 91.9 (71.8, 116.6) 53 (5, 116) 15 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.0, 2.5)
Knox County 7 116.1 (101.7, 132.0) 12 (1, 52) 49 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.1, 1.5)
Ballard County 7 76.3 (55.5, 103.5) 99 (15, 119) 9 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.8, 2.9)
Butler County 7 108.0 (87.1, 132.9) 22 (1, 103) 19 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.1, 2.3)
Jessamine County 7 74.9 (65.6, 85.2) 101 (55, 116) 49 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.7)
Marshall County 7 79.4 (68.6, 91.7) 92 (40, 116) 41 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.0, 1.1)
Wayne County 7 82.9 (69.3, 99.0) 80 (23, 116) 27 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.2, 1.3)
Bullitt County 7 88.2 (80.0, 96.9) 63 (32, 97) 91 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.5)
Lawrence County 7 112.2 (92.8, 134.8) 17 (1, 82) 25 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.8)
Carter County 7 97.3 (83.9, 112.6) 42 (9, 99) 39 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.6)
Casey County 7 80.7 (65.5, 98.9) 88 (25, 118) 20 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.8, 2.8)
Muhlenberg County 7 92.0 (79.7, 105.8) 51 (16, 104) 42 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 0.9)
Allen County 7 78.0 (64.1, 94.3) 96 (30, 118) 23 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.8, 1.2)
Boyd County 7 93.8 (83.8, 104.8) 49 (19, 95) 66 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.5)
Spencer County 7 74.7 (59.3, 93.2) 102 (28, 119) 18 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.0, 2.0)
Bracken County 7 82.0 (59.6, 111.0) 85 (5, 119) 9 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.6, 1.9)
Clark County 7 82.8 (71.7, 95.2) 81 (33, 113) 42 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.0, 1.4)
Harlan County 7 123.6 (107.8, 141.3) 6 (1, 42) 47 stable stable trend -0.9 (-10.3, 0.7)
Madison County 7 79.9 (72.2, 88.3) 90 (49, 111) 81 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.5)
Simpson County 7 89.7 (73.6, 108.6) 60 (11, 114) 22 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.6, 2.0)
Caldwell County 7 86.8 (68.5, 109.1) 70 (10, 117) 16 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.6, 1.7)
Edmonson County 7 104.8 (84.7, 128.9) 30 (1, 105) 20 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.6, 1.7)
Hardin County 7 88.2 (80.9, 95.9) 64 (35, 99) 112 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.2)
Henry County 7 85.0 (68.5, 104.7) 75 (15, 117) 19 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.4, 1.4)
Pulaski County 7 86.9 (78.5, 96.1) 69 (35, 102) 82 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.6, 0.6)
Taylor County 7 78.1 (64.9, 93.3) 95 (32, 118) 26 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.4, 0.5)
Carlisle County 7 102.3 (72.4, 142.6) 33 (1, 118) 8 stable stable trend -1.1 (-5.7, 3.9)
Floyd County 7 125.5 (111.8, 140.5) 5 (1, 35) 65 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.0)
Bell County 7 88.1 (75.0, 102.9) 65 (19, 112) 34 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.5, 1.2)
Boone County 7 73.3 (67.0, 80.0) 106 (72, 116) 106 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Campbell County 7 88.8 (81.1, 97.1) 61 (32, 95) 102 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.8, 0.3)
Gallatin County 7 106.4 (79.7, 139.8) 26 (1, 114) 11 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.4, 2.2)
Henderson County 7 72.5 (63.3, 82.7) 110 (61, 118) 47 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Hickman County 7 80.1 (54.5, 117.2) 89 (6, 119) 6 stable stable trend -1.2 (-5.3, 2.9)
Perry County 7 127.7 (111.3, 146.0) 3 (1, 36) 46 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.8, 1.3)
Anderson County 7 86.0 (71.3, 103.1) 73 (18, 114) 25 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.0, 1.7)
Fulton County 7 90.6 (65.2, 124.3) 55 (2, 119) 9 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.9, 2.2)
Garrard County 7 91.2 (75.0, 110.4) 54 (7, 111) 23 stable stable trend -1.3 (-11.3, 3.8)
Mercer County 7 90.3 (76.2, 106.7) 56 (15, 111) 30 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.4)
Wolfe County 7 106.5 (80.4, 139.7) 25 (1, 115) 12 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.3, 7.3)
Lincoln County 7 102.1 (87.5, 118.7) 34 (4, 89) 36 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.2, 0.5)
Graves County 7 78.3 (67.8, 90.0) 94 (42, 115) 42 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.0, 0.0)
Kenton County 7 82.2 (76.4, 88.3) 84 (53, 105) 158 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.3)
McCreary County 7 105.4 (86.9, 127.1) 28 (2, 101) 23 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.7, 0.6)
Letcher County 7 91.9 (77.3, 108.7) 52 (13, 108) 30 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.3)
Shelby County 7 73.6 (63.9, 84.3) 104 (56, 117) 44 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.8, 0.7)
Fayette County 7 65.7 (61.9, 69.8) 112 (100, 117) 227 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -0.9)
Lyon County 7 58.5 (42.3, 81.1) 118 (48, 119) 9 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.7, 1.3)
Magoffin County 7 84.4 (65.8, 107.3) 77 (7, 119) 15 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.6, 0.1)
Warren County 7 72.8 (66.5, 79.6) 109 (75, 115) 100 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.3, -0.2)
Clinton County 7 97.6 (77.1, 122.9) 41 (2, 112) 16 stable stable trend -2.0 (-23.4, 2.2)
Scott County 7 60.3 (51.3, 70.5) 117 (94, 119) 34 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.1, 0.0)
Hopkins County 7 83.3 (73.5, 94.2) 79 (34, 109) 54 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8)
Lee County 7 89.7 (65.2, 121.6) 59 (2, 119) 9 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.7, 0.1)
Union County 7 65.5 (49.8, 85.0) 113 (46, 119) 12 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.1, -0.5)
McCracken County 7 75.9 (68.3, 84.1) 100 (62, 115) 77 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.4, -0.4)
Franklin County 7 73.3 (64.4, 83.3) 105 (57, 117) 51 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.3, -1.5)
Webster County 7 65.0 (49.0, 85.0) 114 (45, 119) 11 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.8, -0.1)
Woodford County 7 62.4 (51.4, 75.3) 115 (81, 119) 24 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.9, -0.4)
Logan County 7 90.0 (76.8, 105.0) 58 (17, 109) 34 falling falling trend -2.9 (-13.2, -1.5)
Nelson County 7 82.6 (72.1, 94.3) 82 (31, 112) 47 falling falling trend -3.0 (-13.8, -0.2)
Trigg County 7 69.6 (54.9, 87.8) 111 (42, 119) 17 falling falling trend -3.0 (-5.5, -0.7)
Boyle County 7 58.5 (48.6, 70.0) 119 (91, 119) 25 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.3, -1.0)
Daviess County 7 85.1 (78.2, 92.6) 74 (40, 102) 114 falling falling trend -3.3 (-8.2, -1.5)
Jefferson County 7 73.1 (70.6, 75.6) 107 (88, 111) 710 falling falling trend -4.0 (-7.6, -1.8)
Mason County 7 84.9 (68.8, 104.0) 76 (14, 117) 20 falling falling trend -4.0 (-16.2, -0.3)
Oldham County 7 60.4 (52.4, 69.2) 116 (98, 119) 44 falling falling trend -4.0 (-5.0, -3.0)
Grayson County 7 98.6 (84.5, 114.7) 40 (8, 97) 37 falling falling trend -4.1 (-13.8, -0.5)
Menifee County 7 82.3 (59.5, 113.0) 83 (6, 119) 9 falling falling trend -5.1 (-26.3, -0.3)
Ohio County 7 83.8 (70.2, 99.6) 78 (22, 114) 28 falling falling trend -7.2 (-23.7, -2.5)
Greenup County 7 80.7 (70.4, 92.4) 87 (39, 113) 45 falling falling trend -11.4 (-20.7, -1.0)
Estill County 7 106.0 (87.1, 128.5) 27 (1, 100) 23 falling falling trend -13.2 (-24.1, -0.2)
Rowan County 7 78.3 (63.8, 95.3) 93 (28, 118) 21 stable stable trend -13.6 (-29.2, 1.7)
Robertson County 7
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/28/2024 12:13 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. 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.

* 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).

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.
7 Source: SEER November 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