Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Lung & Bronchus (All Stages^), 2014-2018

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

Sorted by Name
County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
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 *** 74.0 (73.2, 74.8) N/A 6,147 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 *** 57.3 (57.1, 57.4) N/A 222,811 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.4, -1.8)
Anderson County 6 *** 73.6 (66.5, 81.3) 74 (38, 91) 83 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.1, 0.3)
Bedford County 6 *** 78.1 (68.0, 89.4) 61 (21, 91) 44 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 1.0)
Benton County 6 *** 102.9 (86.3, 122.4) 13 (1, 60) 28 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.8, 2.3)
Bledsoe County 6 *** 86.3 (69.3, 106.9) 41 (3, 91) 18 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.5, 3.6)
Blount County 6 *** 80.7 (75.0, 86.8) 51 (29, 77) 154 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.6, 1.6)
Bradley County 6 *** 73.3 (66.9, 80.2) 75 (40, 91) 98 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.3, 2.3)
Campbell County 6 *** 111.2 (99.5, 124.0) 5 (1, 28) 68 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.1, 1.2)
Cannon County 6 *** 62.2 (47.3, 81.0) 91 (33, 95) 12 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.1, -0.4)
Carroll County 6 *** 108.1 (94.0, 123.9) 7 (1, 42) 44 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.4, 3.8)
Carter County 6 *** 69.0 (61.3, 77.5) 83 (46, 94) 61 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.8, -0.5)
Cheatham County 6 *** 87.1 (75.1, 100.5) 38 (8, 85) 42 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.3, 1.3)
Chester County 6 *** 74.6 (59.2, 93.0) 72 (14, 94) 17 stable stable trend 2.4 (-1.6, 6.6)
Claiborne County 6 *** 111.4 (97.9, 126.3) 4 (1, 29) 52 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.2)
Clay County 6 *** 65.0 (47.1, 89.2) 90 (18, 95) 9 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.9, -0.7)
Cocke County 6 *** 89.0 (77.8, 101.6) 32 (7, 77) 48 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.7, 2.3)
Coffee County 6 *** 71.6 (62.9, 81.2) 78 (37, 93) 51 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 1.0)
Crockett County 6 *** 88.7 (70.7, 110.4) 33 (2, 93) 17 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.7, 3.9)
Cumberland County 6 *** 68.1 (60.9, 76.0) 85 (48, 93) 77 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.2)
Davidson County 6 *** 65.0 (62.2, 67.9) 89 (78, 93) 434 falling falling trend -6.2 (-8.5, -3.9)
DeKalb County 6 *** 80.7 (66.1, 97.9) 52 (8, 93) 22 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.9, 1.2)
Decatur County 6 *** 99.4 (79.7, 123.3) 16 (1, 87) 19 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.7, 3.1)
Dickson County 6 *** 89.4 (79.3, 100.6) 31 (9, 73) 58 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.9, 2.1)
Dyer County 6 *** 90.5 (78.9, 103.5) 28 (5, 76) 45 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.0, 2.1)
Fayette County 6 *** 65.3 (56.7, 75.1) 87 (51, 94) 43 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.0, 2.2)
Fentress County 6 *** 95.4 (79.4, 114.2) 21 (2, 85) 27 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.8, 1.2)
Franklin County 6 *** 79.6 (69.6, 90.9) 56 (19, 89) 47 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.6, 1.9)
Gibson County 6 *** 82.8 (73.3, 93.3) 45 (15, 85) 56 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.8, 1.4)
Giles County 6 *** 76.3 (65.0, 89.3) 66 (18, 92) 33 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.1)
Grainger County 6 *** 90.6 (76.7, 106.7) 27 (4, 80) 32 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.7, 1.3)
Greene County 6 *** 80.3 (72.7, 88.7) 53 (23, 83) 86 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.1)
Grundy County 6 *** 82.7 (65.9, 103.1) 46 (5, 94) 17 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.5, 2.5)
Hamblen County 6 *** 81.5 (73.1, 90.6) 49 (20, 85) 71 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.0, 0.6)
Hamilton County 6 *** 69.3 (65.9, 72.9) 81 (65, 90) 322 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.6)
Hancock County 6 *** 125.9 (94.6, 165.2) 1 (1, 63) 12 rising rising trend 4.3 (1.8, 6.9)
Hardeman County 6 *** 93.6 (79.3, 110.0) 23 (3, 76) 32 stable stable trend 2.2 (-0.3, 4.8)
Hardin County 6 *** 81.7 (69.6, 95.8) 48 (12, 91) 34 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 1.0)
Hawkins County 6 *** 101.2 (91.7, 111.5) 15 (3, 40) 87 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.5, 2.8)
Haywood County 6 *** 68.8 (54.6, 85.9) 84 (23, 94) 17 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.9, 4.8)
Henderson County 6 *** 82.2 (69.7, 96.5) 47 (12, 90) 32 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.4, 1.6)
Henry County 6 *** 75.7 (65.6, 87.3) 69 (22, 92) 41 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.8)
Hickman County 6 *** 105.0 (89.7, 122.4) 8 (1, 51) 35 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.5, 2.0)
Houston County 6 *** 96.6 (72.9, 126.4) 19 (1, 92) 12 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.6, 5.4)
Humphreys County 6 *** 88.7 (73.5, 106.5) 34 (4, 89) 25 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.5, 1.9)
Jackson County 6 *** 97.7 (78.6, 120.9) 18 (1, 86) 19 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.6, 2.3)
Jefferson County 6 *** 77.9 (69.1, 87.6) 64 (26, 89) 60 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.3, 1.3)
Johnson County 6 *** 77.9 (63.9, 94.7) 63 (13, 94) 22 stable stable trend 1.6 (-2.3, 5.6)
Knox County 6 *** 69.3 (66.1, 72.5) 82 (65, 90) 381 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.0, 4.9)
Lake County 6 *** 98.9 (72.0, 133.5) 17 (1, 93) 9 stable stable trend 0.9 (-3.3, 5.3)
Lauderdale County 6 *** 91.7 (77.2, 108.3) 25 (3, 82) 29 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.9, 3.0)
Lawrence County 6 *** 87.5 (77.0, 99.3) 36 (8, 78) 51 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.9, 1.8)
Lewis County 6 *** 87.8 (68.9, 110.9) 35 (2, 93) 16 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.4, 2.1)
Lincoln County 6 *** 59.6 (50.2, 70.5) 92 (60, 94) 29 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.6, 1.4)
Loudon County 6 *** 74.1 (66.0, 83.1) 73 (34, 91) 68 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 1.0)
Macon County 6 *** 93.2 (78.2, 110.6) 24 (2, 80) 28 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.6, 1.7)
Madison County 6 *** 72.6 (66.0, 79.9) 76 (42, 91) 90 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.2)
Marion County 6 *** 90.9 (78.2, 105.2) 26 (5, 79) 39 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.4, 2.3)
Marshall County 6 *** 89.9 (77.1, 104.2) 30 (5, 82) 37 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.7, 1.9)
Maury County 6 *** 83.6 (76.0, 91.8) 44 (19, 75) 93 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.2, 1.2)
McMinn County 6 *** 77.9 (69.3, 87.5) 62 (24, 89) 61 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.0, 1.2)
McNairy County 6 *** 95.8 (82.4, 111.0) 20 (3, 71) 38 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.3, 3.7)
Meigs County 6 *** 103.9 (82.5, 129.7) 11 (1, 81) 18 rising rising trend 3.4 (0.6, 6.2)
Monroe County 6 *** 95.0 (84.9, 106.2) 22 (5, 60) 67 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.9, 1.8)
Montgomery County 6 *** 76.1 (69.9, 82.7) 67 (35, 88) 117 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1)
Moore County 6 *** 56.9 (37.5, 84.8) 94 (23, 95) 6 stable stable trend -1.8 (-6.4, 3.1)
Morgan County 6 *** 86.4 (71.8, 103.3) 39 (6, 90) 26 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.9, 0.5)
Obion County 6 *** 87.5 (75.5, 101.1) 37 (6, 83) 40 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.9, 2.2)
Overton County 6 *** 104.1 (89.2, 121.3) 10 (1, 57) 36 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.8, 1.5)
Perry County 6 *** 110.0 (85.0, 141.2) 6 (1, 73) 14 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.8, 1.7)
Pickett County 6 *** 77.4 (54.1, 110.9) 65 (2, 95) 8 stable stable trend -0.2 (-4.7, 4.5)
Polk County 6 *** 104.9 (87.3, 125.5) 9 (1, 63) 27 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.1, 3.6)
Putnam County 6 *** 75.1 (67.4, 83.5) 71 (31, 90) 71 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.3)
Rhea County 6 *** 103.1 (90.1, 117.7) 12 (1, 48) 47 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.4, 2.1)
Roane County 6 *** 75.8 (67.7, 84.7) 68 (30, 90) 68 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.1, 0.0)
Robertson County 6 *** 86.3 (77.3, 96.1) 40 (14, 76) 70 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.1)
Rutherford County 6 *** 72.6 (67.9, 77.4) 77 (50, 88) 194 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Scott County 6 *** 102.0 (85.8, 120.7) 14 (1, 64) 29 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.5, 1.6)
Sequatchie County 6 *** 79.7 (63.3, 99.6) 55 (6, 94) 17 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.6, 3.6)
Sevier County 6 *** 80.1 (73.5, 87.3) 54 (27, 82) 113 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.5)
Shelby County 6 *** 59.3 (57.1, 61.6) 93 (87, 94) 587 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.3)
Smith County 6 *** 75.4 (60.6, 93.0) 70 (12, 94) 19 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.4, 3.4)
Stewart County 6 *** 83.7 (66.6, 104.5) 42 (5, 93) 17 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.4, 2.5)
Sullivan County 6 *** 78.3 (73.3, 83.5) 60 (35, 79) 192 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Sumner County 6 *** 70.5 (65.5, 75.8) 80 (53, 91) 154 stable stable trend 2.0 (-1.0, 5.1)
Tipton County 6 *** 81.3 (71.9, 91.7) 50 (16, 85) 57 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.7, 2.1)
Trousdale County 6 *** 119.8 (91.3, 154.5) 2 (1, 71) 13 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.2, 3.3)
Unicoi County 6 *** 65.3 (52.7, 80.6) 88 (31, 94) 20 falling falling trend -5.5 (-9.7, -1.2)
Union County 6 *** 115.5 (97.2, 136.5) 3 (1, 38) 30 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.3, 2.9)
Van Buren County 6 *** 83.6 (58.2, 118.3) 43 (1, 94) 8 stable stable trend 1.0 (-3.0, 5.1)
Warren County 6 *** 78.8 (68.5, 90.3) 59 (20, 90) 43 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.0, 2.4)
Washington County 6 *** 71.3 (65.6, 77.3) 79 (49, 91) 121 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Wayne County 6 *** 89.9 (73.6, 109.2) 29 (2, 88) 22 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.2, 3.5)
Weakley County 6 *** 79.1 (67.7, 92.1) 57 (13, 91) 35 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.7, 2.0)
White County 6 *** 78.9 (66.7, 92.9) 58 (15, 92) 31 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.2, 0.3)
Williamson County 6 *** 40.5 (36.7, 44.6) 95 (93, 95) 89 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.1, -2.2)
Wilson County 6 *** 66.9 (61.3, 73.0) 86 (61, 93) 108 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.6, -1.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/27/2021 2:05 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.
*** No Healthy People 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


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