Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Tennessee by County

All Cancer Sites (All Stages^), 2015-2019

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages <65

Sorted by Count
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 ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Tennessee 6 243.3 (241.6, 245.0) N/A 16,991 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.1)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 228.3 (228.1, 228.5) N/A 750,680 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.0)
Shelby County 6 236.5 (232.0, 241.1) 67 (52, 81) 2,232 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.1)
Davidson County 6 227.2 (222.0, 232.5) 84 (66, 90) 1,522 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Knox County 6 244.4 (237.8, 251.0) 58 (34, 75) 1,137 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.2, -0.1)
Hamilton County 6 243.6 (236.3, 251.1) 60 (34, 77) 922 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.4)
Rutherford County 6 235.0 (227.2, 243.0) 71 (48, 87) 700 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.5)
Williamson County 6 226.6 (217.9, 235.6) 86 (59, 92) 537 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.5, 0.6)
Sumner County 6 247.2 (237.1, 257.6) 53 (24, 78) 479 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.7)
Sullivan County 6 255.1 (243.8, 266.8) 37 (16, 70) 435 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.4)
Montgomery County 6 229.5 (219.2, 240.0) 82 (49, 91) 390 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.8)
Blount County 6 253.7 (241.4, 266.4) 40 (15, 74) 358 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.3)
Wilson County 6 234.4 (223.2, 246.2) 72 (40, 90) 344 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.5)
Washington County 6 232.2 (220.2, 244.6) 77 (41, 92) 310 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Sevier County 6 260.1 (245.8, 275.1) 30 (9, 68) 277 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.4, 1.0)
Bradley County 6 241.9 (228.6, 255.8) 61 (25, 87) 264 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.2, 1.5)
Maury County 6 253.0 (238.6, 268.2) 43 (12, 79) 251 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.8)
Madison County 6 238.4 (224.7, 252.8) 66 (30, 90) 249 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.2, 1.0)
Anderson County 6 251.6 (235.8, 268.2) 45 (13, 84) 212 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.9)
Greene County 6 262.2 (245.2, 280.1) 28 (6, 72) 200 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.3, 2.0)
Robertson County 6 243.8 (227.9, 260.5) 59 (19, 89) 189 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.6)
Hawkins County 6 265.4 (246.8, 285.1) 23 (5, 71) 171 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.1, 1.7)
Tipton County 6 257.7 (240.0, 276.4) 33 (7, 78) 169 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.1, 1.8)
Hamblen County 6 253.4 (235.9, 271.9) 42 (10, 82) 166 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.3)
Putnam County 6 227.1 (211.4, 243.8) 85 (41, 93) 166 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.2)
Dickson County 6 272.3 (252.7, 293.1) 16 (3, 60) 155 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.4, 2.1)
Jefferson County 6 264.6 (245.1, 285.3) 24 (4, 72) 154 stable stable trend 0.9 (0.0, 1.7)
Roane County 6 245.0 (226.5, 264.8) 56 (15, 91) 153 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.3)
Carter County 6 239.3 (221.5, 258.2) 64 (20, 92) 152 stable stable trend 0.9 (0.0, 1.8)
Cumberland County 6 232.2 (214.1, 251.6) 76 (27, 93) 147 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.6)
Coffee County 6 250.7 (232.0, 270.5) 46 (11, 86) 145 stable stable trend 0.8 (0.0, 1.7)
Monroe County 6 274.5 (253.3, 297.2) 12 (2, 62) 139 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.4, 2.6)
McMinn County 6 234.0 (215.7, 253.5) 73 (26, 93) 136 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.1)
Loudon County 6 240.1 (220.6, 261.0) 62 (15, 92) 134 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.1, 1.4)
Gibson County 6 246.4 (226.9, 267.2) 54 (11, 90) 128 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.5)
Campbell County 6 292.4 (269.0, 317.4) 5 (1, 40) 128 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.4, 1.4)
Fayette County 6 245.8 (224.7, 268.6) 55 (10, 91) 118 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.3)
Cheatham County 6 259.2 (237.7, 282.2) 31 (5, 83) 118 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.6, 1.7)
Cocke County 6 272.2 (248.7, 297.6) 17 (2, 74) 112 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.1, 2.2)
Bedford County 6 230.7 (211.6, 251.2) 81 (27, 94) 112 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.0)
Lawrence County 6 232.8 (212.5, 254.5) 75 (21, 94) 105 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.1)
Dyer County 6 274.9 (250.9, 300.6) 11 (2, 70) 104 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.2, 2.7)
Franklin County 6 231.0 (210.1, 253.5) 80 (24, 94) 102 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.9, 0.4)
Warren County 6 236.1 (215.1, 258.6) 68 (18, 93) 101 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.5, 1.3)
Henry County 6 262.7 (238.4, 288.9) 26 (3, 86) 98 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.3, 2.5)
Claiborne County 6 276.1 (250.7, 303.5) 10 (1, 71) 98 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.2)
Marshall County 6 270.1 (245.5, 296.6) 19 (2, 78) 96 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.3, 2.2)
Marion County 6 289.5 (262.0, 319.3) 6 (1, 56) 92 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.7, 1.6)
Rhea County 6 250.3 (226.3, 276.3) 48 (7, 91) 87 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.5, -0.8)
Obion County 6 257.5 (232.5, 284.6) 34 (4, 88) 86 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.3, 2.7)
Weakley County 6 253.6 (228.3, 281.1) 41 (4, 91) 81 stable stable trend 1.0 (0.0, 2.0)
Giles County 6 232.0 (207.9, 258.4) 78 (16, 94) 77 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.3)
Hickman County 6 277.6 (249.4, 308.4) 9 (1, 75) 76 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.2, 2.8)
Hardin County 6 261.7 (234.4, 291.6) 29 (2, 88) 76 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.7, 1.8)
Lincoln County 6 194.8 (174.4, 217.1) 95 (77, 95) 75 falling falling trend -3.2 (-5.5, -0.7)
Macon County 6 308.0 (276.5, 342.1) 2 (1, 37) 75 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.4, 1.9)
Carroll County 6 256.6 (229.7, 286.0) 35 (4, 90) 74 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.2)
White County 6 254.4 (227.6, 283.6) 39 (4, 90) 73 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.1)
Hardeman County 6 259.0 (232.1, 288.5) 32 (3, 88) 72 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.5, 1.8)
Henderson County 6 239.0 (214.0, 266.3) 65 (10, 93) 72 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.6, 1.6)
Grainger County 6 272.4 (243.3, 304.4) 15 (1, 83) 72 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.6)
Lauderdale County 6 248.1 (222.1, 276.5) 51 (6, 92) 70 falling falling trend -8.6 (-14.8, -1.9)
McNairy County 6 249.6 (222.3, 279.4) 49 (5, 92) 68 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.7, 2.3)
Overton County 6 262.3 (233.0, 294.5) 27 (2, 90) 64 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.4, 1.4)
Union County 6 264.4 (233.4, 298.8) 25 (1, 90) 59 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.0, 1.3)
Haywood County 6 289.0 (254.3, 327.3) 7 (1, 74) 58 rising rising trend 2.1 (0.5, 3.7)
Benton County 6 319.9 (281.6, 362.5) 1 (1, 34) 58 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.3, 2.8)
Humphreys County 6 269.5 (236.7, 305.8) 21 (1, 90) 55 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.6)
Morgan County 6 231.4 (203.9, 261.8) 79 (11, 95) 55 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 0.9)
Scott County 6 247.3 (218.1, 279.5) 52 (5, 93) 55 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.3)
Smith County 6 250.4 (220.4, 283.6) 47 (4, 93) 55 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.3, 2.1)
Unicoi County 6 272.0 (237.9, 309.9) 18 (1, 88) 53 stable stable trend 1.8 (0.0, 3.5)
Fentress County 6 244.9 (213.4, 280.1) 57 (5, 94) 50 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.6)
DeKalb County 6 214.1 (186.9, 244.4) 91 (27, 95) 49 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.4, 0.5)
Chester County 6 267.7 (232.7, 306.8) 22 (1, 90) 45 stable stable trend 1.5 (-0.7, 3.8)
Johnson County 6 218.8 (189.7, 251.7) 89 (17, 95) 45 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.5, 3.3)
Wayne County 6 235.4 (204.0, 270.8) 70 (8, 95) 43 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.6, 2.8)
Polk County 6 233.4 (201.3, 269.6) 74 (6, 95) 43 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.3, 2.5)
Sequatchie County 6 254.8 (218.9, 295.3) 38 (1, 94) 41 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.3, 0.8)
Cannon County 6 255.6 (219.8, 296.1) 36 (2, 94) 40 stable stable trend -2.6 (-6.6, 1.6)
Meigs County 6 297.8 (254.6, 346.7) 4 (1, 79) 38 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.1, 3.9)
Bledsoe County 6 212.1 (181.9, 246.6) 92 (25, 95) 38 stable stable trend -3.3 (-7.8, 1.3)
Lewis County 6 274.3 (233.8, 320.3) 14 (1, 90) 37 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.4, 2.5)
Stewart County 6 240.0 (204.2, 280.7) 63 (3, 95) 36 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.6)
Crockett County 6 236.1 (201.2, 275.6) 69 (4, 95) 36 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.3, 2.2)
Grundy County 6 252.1 (214.6, 294.6) 44 (2, 94) 35 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.0, 2.5)
Jackson County 6 219.1 (182.5, 261.6) 88 (11, 95) 31 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.2, -1.3)
Decatur County 6 225.9 (188.9, 268.8) 87 (6, 95) 30 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.8, 1.5)
Trousdale County 6 274.4 (229.4, 326.1) 13 (1, 93) 28 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.9, 2.9)
Houston County 6 285.8 (236.2, 343.7) 8 (1, 91) 26 rising rising trend 3.5 (1.8, 5.3)
Hancock County 6 298.0 (242.1, 364.0) 3 (1, 92) 23 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.5, 5.5)
Perry County 6 269.7 (218.5, 329.8) 20 (1, 94) 22 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.2, 3.2)
Clay County 6 227.7 (182.7, 281.9) 83 (3, 95) 20 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 1.1)
Moore County 6 248.8 (197.6, 310.7) 50 (1, 95) 18 stable stable trend 2.6 (-0.2, 5.5)
Lake County 6 218.1 (174.4, 270.8) 90 (6, 95) 18 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.2, 3.3)
Van Buren County 6 211.7 (163.9, 271.2) 93 (3, 95) 15 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.9, 4.0)
Pickett County 6 208.2 (154.2, 277.4) 94 (2, 95) 12 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.8, 3.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/05/2022 12:00 am.

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