Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Colon & Rectum (All Stages^), 2014-2018

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

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 39.9?
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
Tennessee 6 No 40.4 (39.8, 41.1) N/A 3,198 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.6)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 Yes 38.0 (37.9, 38.1) N/A 143,200 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.2)
Grundy County 6 No 65.6 (48.6, 86.8) 1 (1, 65) 11 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.7, 3.5)
Pickett County 6 No 64.8 (39.4, 102.2) 2 (1, 93) 5 stable stable trend 3.2 (-0.7, 7.4)
Houston County 6 No 63.9 (43.8, 90.9) 3 (1, 88) 7 stable stable trend -0.9 (-5.3, 3.7)
Overton County 6 No 60.1 (47.9, 74.7) 4 (1, 58) 18 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.8, 2.9)
Trousdale County 6 No 59.7 (40.5, 85.2) 5 (1, 92) 6 stable stable trend -2.6 (-6.9, 2.0)
Lauderdale County 6 No 54.9 (43.5, 68.4) 6 (1, 74) 17 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.1, 0.7)
Stewart County 6 No 54.3 (40.2, 72.5) 7 (1, 88) 10 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.4, 1.6)
Lake County 6 No 54.3 (34.9, 81.7) 8 (1, 93) 5 stable stable trend 1.5 (-4.1, 7.5)
Haywood County 6 No 53.3 (40.7, 68.8) 9 (1, 86) 13 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.7, 1.9)
Henderson County 6 No 52.5 (42.0, 65.0) 10 (1, 76) 18 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.6, 3.3)
Chester County 6 No 52.4 (38.8, 69.3) 11 (1, 91) 11 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.9, 4.8)
Crockett County 6 No 52.1 (38.3, 69.6) 12 (1, 91) 10 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.3, 5.1)
Lewis County 6 No 51.9 (37.4, 70.7) 13 (1, 92) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-4.9, 3.5)
Dyer County 6 No 50.4 (41.6, 60.7) 14 (2, 78) 24 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.2, 2.6)
Perry County 6 No 49.9 (31.0, 76.3) 15 (1, 93) 5 stable stable trend -1.6 (-6.5, 3.6)
Macon County 6 No 49.6 (38.3, 63.2) 16 (1, 91) 14 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.1, 1.9)
Humphreys County 6 No 49.5 (37.6, 64.2) 17 (1, 91) 13 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.9, 3.4)
McNairy County 6 No 49.4 (39.3, 61.7) 18 (2, 88) 18 stable stable trend -2.2 (-6.3, 2.1)
Hardeman County 6 No 48.9 (38.7, 61.2) 19 (1, 87) 16 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.6)
Cannon County 6 No 48.3 (34.9, 65.7) 20 (1, 93) 9 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.7, 3.1)
Decatur County 6 No 48.2 (34.0, 67.0) 21 (1, 93) 9 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.0, 1.8)
Lincoln County 6 No 48.0 (39.0, 58.6) 22 (3, 86) 22 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.5, 1.4)
Benton County 6 No 47.7 (35.8, 62.8) 23 (1, 92) 12 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.9, 3.6)
Carroll County 6 No 47.3 (38.0, 58.4) 24 (3, 88) 19 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.9, 2.0)
Montgomery County 6 No 46.3 (41.5, 51.5) 25 (9, 67) 71 rising rising trend 7.6 (1.0, 14.7)
Warren County 6 No 46.2 (38.0, 55.8) 26 (3, 86) 23 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.4, 1.0)
Obion County 6 No 46.2 (37.5, 56.6) 27 (4, 88) 21 stable stable trend -2.3 (-4.8, 0.4)
Campbell County 6 No 46.1 (38.2, 55.3) 28 (5, 86) 26 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.7, 1.8)
Dickson County 6 No 46.0 (38.6, 54.5) 29 (5, 84) 29 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.1, -0.6)
Greene County 6 No 46.0 (39.9, 52.8) 30 (7, 78) 45 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.3, 2.4)
Marion County 6 No 45.8 (36.3, 57.2) 31 (4, 91) 17 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.1, 1.9)
Henry County 6 No 45.2 (36.7, 55.2) 32 (5, 90) 22 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.0, 0.6)
Unicoi County 6 No 45.0 (34.2, 58.8) 33 (2, 93) 13 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.4, 3.3)
White County 6 No 44.7 (35.3, 56.1) 34 (4, 92) 16 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.6, 1.6)
Claiborne County 6 No 44.3 (35.4, 54.8) 35 (5, 91) 19 falling falling trend -2.6 (-5.0, -0.1)
Jefferson County 6 No 44.2 (37.3, 52.0) 36 (6, 86) 32 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.6, 1.6)
Franklin County 6 No 44.1 (36.4, 53.1) 37 (5, 90) 25 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.1, 1.1)
Coffee County 6 No 43.7 (36.9, 51.5) 38 (8, 87) 30 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.1, 1.1)
Tipton County 6 No 43.7 (36.9, 51.5) 39 (8, 88) 31 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.2, 0.1)
Clay County 6 No 43.6 (28.1, 66.3) 40 (1, 93) 5 falling falling trend -3.8 (-7.0, -0.5)
Maury County 6 No 43.6 (37.9, 49.9) 41 (11, 84) 45 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.5, -0.1)
Polk County 6 No 43.6 (31.7, 58.8) 42 (3, 93) 10 stable stable trend 0.2 (-3.1, 3.7)
Shelby County 6 No 43.3 (41.5, 45.3) 43 (26, 60) 425 stable stable trend 1.6 (-3.1, 6.6)
McMinn County 6 No 43.3 (36.5, 51.0) 44 (10, 89) 32 rising rising trend 2.3 (0.6, 4.0)
Fentress County 6 No 43.3 (32.1, 57.4) 45 (3, 93) 11 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.2, 1.0)
Sequatchie County 6 No 43.0 (31.1, 58.5) 46 (2, 93) 9 stable stable trend -30.4 (-63.5, 32.5)
Scott County 6 No 42.9 (32.2, 56.3) 47 (3, 93) 11 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.3, 1.6)
Fayette County 6 No 42.9 (35.3, 51.7) 48 (7, 91) 25 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.0, 0.2)
Sevier County 6 No 42.8 (37.7, 48.3) 49 (14, 84) 56 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.5, 1.0)
Robertson County 6 No 42.7 (36.4, 49.9) 50 (9, 88) 34 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.8, -0.9)
Madison County 6 No 42.5 (37.3, 48.3) 51 (12, 85) 51 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.8, 0.1)
Meigs County 6 No 42.1 (28.7, 60.3) 52 (2, 93) 7 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.8, 1.0)
Bradley County 6 No 42.1 (37.1, 47.5) 53 (14, 85) 54 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.5, 1.4)
Hamblen County 6 No 42.0 (36.0, 48.9) 54 (12, 89) 36 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.4)
Monroe County 6 No 41.8 (34.8, 50.1) 55 (9, 91) 27 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.4, 1.6)
Gibson County 6 No 41.7 (34.8, 49.6) 56 (11, 91) 27 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.2, -0.2)
Marshall County 6 No 41.6 (33.0, 52.0) 57 (7, 93) 17 stable stable trend -2.4 (-5.1, 0.4)
Rhea County 6 No 41.6 (33.2, 51.7) 58 (7, 93) 18 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.3, 0.8)
Giles County 6 No 41.6 (32.8, 52.1) 59 (7, 93) 17 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.1, 0.1)
Johnson County 6 No 41.4 (30.6, 55.2) 60 (4, 93) 11 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.5, 3.7)
Hawkins County 6 No 41.0 (34.7, 48.3) 61 (13, 91) 32 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.6, 0.2)
Moore County 6 No 40.9 (24.2, 66.5) 62 (1, 93) 4 stable stable trend -1.2 (-7.4, 5.5)
Anderson County 6 No 40.6 (35.2, 46.7) 63 (17, 89) 43 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.9, -0.8)
Putnam County 6 No 40.3 (34.5, 46.8) 64 (15, 90) 36 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.7, -1.0)
Bedford County 6 No 40.3 (33.0, 48.7) 65 (12, 92) 22 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.4)
Sumner County 6 No 39.9 (36.1, 44.0) 66 (29, 86) 85 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.4, -0.6)
Morgan County 6 Yes 39.7 (29.7, 52.4) 67 (6, 93) 11 falling falling trend -5.4 (-8.7, -1.9)
Smith County 6 Yes 39.5 (29.1, 52.8) 68 (5, 93) 10 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.4, 0.5)
Lawrence County 6 Yes 39.2 (32.1, 47.6) 69 (13, 93) 22 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.2, 0.6)
Hardin County 6 Yes 38.1 (30.0, 48.1) 70 (12, 93) 16 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.5, 1.3)
Davidson County 6 Yes 37.9 (35.7, 40.1) 71 (49, 86) 254 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.9, -1.4)
Weakley County 6 Yes 37.5 (29.7, 46.9) 72 (14, 93) 17 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.7, 0.3)
Cocke County 6 Yes 37.5 (30.2, 46.2) 73 (15, 93) 20 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.1, -0.3)
Grainger County 6 Yes 37.3 (28.0, 49.0) 74 (11, 93) 12 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.7, -0.3)
Hamilton County 6 Yes 37.2 (34.6, 39.9) 75 (49, 88) 165 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.0, -1.6)
Rutherford County 6 Yes 37.2 (33.9, 40.7) 76 (46, 90) 102 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.5, 0.0)
Jackson County 6 Yes 36.8 (24.6, 53.7) 77 (4, 93) 7 falling falling trend -4.9 (-8.6, -1.1)
Hickman County 6 Yes 36.4 (27.3, 47.7) 78 (12, 93) 11 falling falling trend -4.2 (-6.6, -1.6)
Cheatham County 6 Yes 36.3 (28.6, 45.4) 79 (15, 93) 17 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.8, 1.3)
Knox County 6 Yes 36.1 (33.8, 38.5) 80 (57, 90) 188 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -0.9)
Wayne County 6 Yes 36.0 (25.6, 49.7) 81 (10, 93) 8 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.7, 1.9)
DeKalb County 6 Yes 35.9 (26.4, 48.1) 82 (10, 93) 10 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.3, 0.7)
Blount County 6 Yes 35.9 (31.8, 40.5) 83 (41, 93) 59 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.0, 0.0)
Sullivan County 6 Yes 35.8 (32.2, 39.6) 84 (49, 92) 81 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.8, -0.7)
Wilson County 6 Yes 35.7 (31.5, 40.3) 85 (41, 93) 55 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.5, -2.1)
Washington County 6 Yes 35.1 (31.1, 39.6) 86 (49, 93) 57 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.4)
Roane County 6 Yes 34.7 (28.9, 41.5) 87 (36, 93) 28 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.1, -0.3)
Cumberland County 6 Yes 34.4 (28.9, 40.8) 88 (39, 93) 36 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.2, -0.9)
Carter County 6 Yes 34.1 (28.6, 40.4) 89 (37, 93) 29 falling falling trend -3.2 (-5.9, -0.6)
Loudon County 6 Yes 34.0 (27.9, 41.3) 90 (30, 93) 26 rising rising trend 7.8 (0.3, 15.8)
Bledsoe County 6 Yes 32.5 (22.0, 46.8) 91 (13, 93) 6 falling falling trend -4.0 (-7.6, -0.3)
Williamson County 6 Yes 32.0 (28.7, 35.6) 92 (67, 93) 73 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.1, -1.5)
Union County 6 Yes 31.8 (22.2, 44.4) 93 (19, 93) 8 stable stable trend -3.4 (-7.2, 0.6)
Hancock County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Van Buren County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/01/2021 2:20 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 1969-2018 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.
Healthy People 2020 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

* 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 (2001-2018) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2020 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database (2001-2018) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2020 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 1969-2018 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2020 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 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