Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Lung & Bronchus (All Stages^), 2015-2019

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

Sorted by Name
County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
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
Tennessee 6 72.9 (72.1, 73.7) N/A 6,221 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 56.3 (56.2, 56.4) N/A 223,216 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.5, -1.8)
Anderson County 6 71.7 (64.8, 79.3) 73 (41, 92) 82 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.0, 0.1)
Bedford County 6 75.7 (65.8, 86.7) 69 (24, 93) 44 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.7)
Benton County 6 108.0 (90.8, 128.1) 7 (1, 51) 30 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.8, 1.8)
Bledsoe County 6 81.8 (65.4, 101.7) 49 (4, 94) 18 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.6, 2.9)
Blount County 6 80.4 (74.8, 86.3) 55 (27, 74) 159 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.8, 1.3)
Bradley County 6 69.7 (63.5, 76.3) 79 (49, 92) 96 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.0, 1.7)
Campbell County 6 107.8 (96.3, 120.4) 8 (1, 33) 66 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.9, 1.0)
Cannon County 6 69.7 (54.0, 89.1) 78 (18, 94) 14 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.8, 1.4)
Carroll County 6 100.6 (87.0, 116.1) 15 (1, 57) 41 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.5, 3.2)
Carter County 6 71.5 (63.6, 80.1) 76 (39, 93) 64 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.3, -0.4)
Cheatham County 6 81.6 (70.2, 94.5) 50 (14, 88) 40 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.7, 0.8)
Chester County 6 82.8 (66.6, 102.0) 46 (4, 93) 19 stable stable trend 2.7 (-0.7, 6.3)
Claiborne County 6 104.9 (92.0, 119.3) 9 (1, 46) 50 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.1)
Clay County 6 68.4 (50.2, 93.0) 84 (11, 95) 10 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.7, -1.0)
Cocke County 6 90.1 (79.0, 102.6) 27 (6, 71) 51 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.3, 2.2)
Coffee County 6 80.1 (70.9, 90.2) 57 (20, 86) 58 rising rising trend 13.9 (3.3, 25.4)
Crockett County 6 90.0 (72.0, 111.5) 28 (2, 91) 18 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.0, 3.7)
Cumberland County 6 62.6 (55.9, 70.1) 91 (66, 94) 74 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.2)
Davidson County 6 62.7 (60.0, 65.5) 90 (81, 94) 431 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.3, -1.8)
DeKalb County 6 91.2 (76.0, 109.0) 26 (3, 86) 26 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.6, 2.2)
Decatur County 6 102.1 (82.5, 125.8) 12 (1, 75) 20 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.3, 2.8)
Dickson County 6 91.3 (81.1, 102.4) 24 (6, 68) 61 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.0, 1.7)
Dyer County 6 93.9 (82.1, 107.2) 20 (4, 66) 47 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.0, 1.9)
Fayette County 6 61.8 (53.6, 71.1) 93 (61, 94) 42 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.3, 1.7)
Fentress County 6 88.8 (73.6, 106.8) 31 (3, 89) 26 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.2, 0.6)
Franklin County 6 73.2 (63.6, 83.9) 72 (28, 93) 44 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.9, 1.5)
Gibson County 6 86.0 (76.4, 96.7) 37 (12, 76) 59 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.3)
Giles County 6 78.8 (67.4, 91.9) 59 (15, 91) 35 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.2)
Grainger County 6 96.4 (82.1, 112.8) 19 (1, 69) 35 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.0, 1.5)
Greene County 6 78.5 (71.1, 86.6) 60 (25, 86) 86 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.4)
Grundy County 6 85.3 (68.4, 105.7) 39 (4, 92) 18 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.3, 2.0)
Hamblen County 6 81.0 (72.8, 90.0) 52 (18, 83) 72 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.7)
Hamilton County 6 66.0 (62.7, 69.4) 88 (71, 92) 315 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Hancock County 6 114.1 (84.9, 151.3) 3 (1, 82) 11 rising rising trend 3.4 (0.8, 6.1)
Hardeman County 6 84.4 (71.0, 99.8) 41 (7, 89) 29 stable stable trend -8.7 (-19.2, 3.1)
Hardin County 6 84.6 (72.3, 98.8) 40 (9, 88) 36 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 1.0)
Hawkins County 6 99.8 (90.5, 109.9) 16 (2, 43) 89 stable stable trend -2.7 (-6.8, 1.6)
Haywood County 6 76.5 (61.7, 94.2) 65 (12, 94) 20 stable stable trend 0.7 (-2.8, 4.3)
Henderson County 6 87.4 (74.6, 102.0) 34 (5, 85) 34 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.8, 1.6)
Henry County 6 76.3 (66.0, 88.0) 67 (24, 93) 42 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.2, 0.6)
Hickman County 6 113.9 (98.2, 131.7) 4 (1, 32) 39 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.7, 2.5)
Houston County 6 109.5 (84.2, 141.0) 6 (1, 83) 13 stable stable trend 2.1 (-0.7, 5.1)
Humphreys County 6 83.6 (68.9, 101.0) 44 (6, 92) 23 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.2, 1.7)
Jackson County 6 89.7 (71.3, 112.4) 29 (2, 91) 18 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.4, 1.9)
Jefferson County 6 83.8 (74.8, 93.7) 43 (15, 80) 67 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.8, 1.4)
Johnson County 6 79.3 (65.2, 96.2) 58 (10, 94) 23 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.6, 4.9)
Knox County 6 69.6 (66.5, 72.8) 80 (64, 89) 393 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.3, 3.2)
Lake County 6 118.0 (87.9, 156.0) 1 (1, 72) 11 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.3, 5.2)
Lauderdale County 6 91.7 (77.3, 108.1) 23 (3, 82) 30 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.7, 2.6)
Lawrence County 6 85.3 (74.9, 96.8) 38 (12, 83) 50 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.1, 1.4)
Lewis County 6 88.1 (69.5, 111.0) 32 (2, 92) 16 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.0, 1.6)
Lincoln County 6 62.1 (52.7, 73.1) 92 (56, 94) 32 stable stable trend -2.4 (-5.3, 0.6)
Loudon County 6 70.8 (63.1, 79.4) 77 (40, 93) 67 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.7)
Macon County 6 99.0 (83.6, 116.6) 18 (1, 68) 30 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.8, 1.8)
Madison County 6 69.1 (62.7, 76.1) 82 (52, 93) 88 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.8)
Marion County 6 91.3 (78.6, 105.7) 25 (4, 76) 39 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.7, 1.7)
Marshall County 6 92.3 (79.6, 106.6) 21 (4, 75) 39 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.2, 1.9)
Maury County 6 81.3 (74.0, 89.2) 51 (22, 80) 95 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.2, 0.8)
McMinn County 6 80.6 (71.9, 90.3) 54 (19, 85) 64 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.5, 1.6)
McNairy County 6 87.5 (74.7, 102.2) 33 (6, 85) 35 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.9, 3.4)
Meigs County 6 89.0 (69.7, 112.7) 30 (1, 93) 16 stable stable trend 2.3 (-0.6, 5.2)
Monroe County 6 99.5 (89.2, 110.8) 17 (3, 49) 72 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.4, 1.9)
Montgomery County 6 76.8 (70.6, 83.4) 64 (33, 86) 120 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.2)
Moore County 6 64.2 (43.9, 92.8) 89 (10, 95) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-4.3, 3.6)
Morgan County 6 80.2 (66.3, 96.6) 56 (10, 93) 24 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.7, 0.4)
Obion County 6 82.3 (70.9, 95.3) 48 (12, 88) 39 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.8, 1.8)
Overton County 6 92.0 (78.1, 108.0) 22 (3, 78) 32 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.1, 1.0)
Perry County 6 103.7 (79.5, 134.2) 11 (1, 87) 13 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.2, 1.3)
Pickett County 6 71.5 (49.3, 103.8) 75 (4, 95) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.7, 3.7)
Polk County 6 101.5 (84.3, 121.6) 14 (1, 66) 26 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.9, 2.8)
Putnam County 6 67.1 (59.9, 75.1) 87 (53, 94) 64 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.8, -0.1)
Rhea County 6 103.7 (90.7, 118.3) 10 (1, 50) 47 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.1, 1.9)
Roane County 6 73.4 (65.5, 82.1) 71 (32, 92) 67 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.6, 0.1)
Robertson County 6 86.5 (77.6, 96.3) 36 (12, 74) 72 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.8)
Rutherford County 6 71.5 (67.0, 76.2) 74 (54, 89) 200 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Scott County 6 101.7 (85.6, 120.1) 13 (1, 69) 29 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.3, 1.3)
Sequatchie County 6 76.2 (60.7, 95.0) 68 (11, 94) 18 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.9, 2.7)
Sevier County 6 77.3 (70.8, 84.2) 62 (32, 83) 112 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.2)
Shelby County 6 58.5 (56.4, 60.7) 94 (88, 94) 592 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.0)
Smith County 6 84.0 (68.6, 102.1) 42 (6, 91) 22 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.9, 3.0)
Stewart County 6 87.3 (69.9, 108.3) 35 (2, 92) 18 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.3, 2.0)
Sullivan County 6 76.4 (71.6, 81.6) 66 (38, 80) 191 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
Sumner County 6 68.6 (63.8, 73.7) 83 (60, 92) 156 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Tipton County 6 82.9 (73.6, 93.2) 45 (14, 83) 60 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.3, 2.0)
Trousdale County 6 113.3 (86.0, 146.6) 5 (1, 85) 12 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.1, 3.0)
Unicoi County 6 67.2 (54.4, 82.8) 86 (26, 94) 20 falling falling trend -4.6 (-8.1, -1.0)
Union County 6 115.0 (97.2, 135.5) 2 (1, 40) 31 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.1, 2.6)
Van Buren County 6 77.1 (53.1, 110.3) 63 (1, 94) 7 stable stable trend 0.3 (-3.1, 3.9)
Warren County 6 82.5 (72.1, 94.1) 47 (14, 86) 46 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.4, 2.7)
Washington County 6 69.3 (63.8, 75.2) 81 (55, 92) 121 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.8)
Wayne County 6 80.7 (65.4, 99.2) 53 (7, 94) 20 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.5, 2.7)
Weakley County 6 78.5 (67.1, 91.4) 61 (17, 92) 35 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.4, 1.9)
White County 6 74.3 (62.6, 87.7) 70 (21, 94) 30 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.9, -0.3)
Williamson County 6 40.0 (36.3, 44.0) 95 (94, 95) 93 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.9, -2.1)
Wilson County 6 68.1 (62.5, 74.0) 85 (56, 93) 116 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.0, -0.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/02/2022 2:28 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 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.

1 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database (2001-2019) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2021 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database (2001-2019) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2021 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 2021 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 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