Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Melanoma of the Skin (All Stages^), 2017-2021

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

Sorted by CI*Rank

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban 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 ascending
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 N/A 20.4 (19.9, 20.9) N/A 1,662 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.6, 0.8)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 22.7 (22.6, 22.8) N/A 86,630 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.5, 1.5)
Shelby County 6 Urban 10.6 (9.7, 11.6) 82 (72, 82) 104 stable stable trend -2.7 (-23.0, 1.6)
Gibson County 6 Urban 10.9 (7.3, 15.6) 81 (52, 82) 6 stable stable trend -0.1 (-5.0, 5.4)
Hardeman County 6 Rural 11.8 (7.1, 18.7) 80 (37, 82) 4
*
*
McNairy County 6 Rural 11.9 (7.1, 18.9) 79 (39, 82) 4 stable stable trend -0.2 (-3.6, 3.6)
Obion County 6 Rural 12.2 (7.9, 18.2) 78 (41, 82) 5 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.7, 5.9)
Montgomery County 6 Urban 12.3 (10.0, 14.9) 77 (58, 82) 21 falling falling trend -2.8 (-11.2, -0.8)
Madison County 6 Urban 12.4 (9.7, 15.6) 76 (54, 82) 15 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.3, 2.8)
Carroll County 6 Rural 12.7 (8.2, 19.0) 75 (36, 82) 5 stable stable trend -2.4 (-5.8, 0.9)
Hardin County 6 Rural 13.2 (8.3, 20.2) 74 (30, 82) 5 stable stable trend -1.2 (-5.1, 2.9)
Dyer County 6 Rural 13.4 (9.0, 19.5) 73 (34, 82) 6
*
*
Giles County 6 Rural 13.8 (8.9, 20.5) 72 (27, 82) 6
*
*
Bedford County 6 Rural 13.9 (9.8, 19.2) 71 (36, 82) 8 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.2, 2.3)
Haywood County 6 Rural 14.0 (7.7, 23.6) 70 (17, 82) 3
*
*
Davidson County 6 Urban 14.0 (12.8, 15.3) 69 (58, 77) 99 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.7, 0.3)
Rutherford County 6 Urban 14.9 (13.0, 16.9) 68 (51, 77) 47 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.4, 4.0)
Henderson County 6 Rural 15.1 (9.6, 22.7) 67 (20, 82) 5 stable stable trend 2.5 (-2.6, 8.4)
Macon County 6 Urban 15.1 (8.9, 23.9) 66 (17, 82) 4 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.4, 4.0)
Lauderdale County 6 Rural 15.9 (9.9, 24.4) 65 (14, 82) 4 stable stable trend 2.1 (-1.5, 6.4)
Hickman County 6 Urban 16.1 (10.3, 24.3) 64 (13, 82) 5
*
*
Maury County 6 Urban 16.2 (13.0, 20.0) 63 (34, 78) 19 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.1, 2.6)
Stewart County 6 Urban 16.3 (9.2, 27.5) 62 (7, 82) 3
*
*
Meigs County 6 Rural 16.7 (9.4, 28.5) 61 (5, 82) 3
*
*
Lincoln County 6 Rural 17.4 (12.1, 24.3) 60 (14, 81) 8 stable stable trend 2.0 (-1.5, 6.1)
Tipton County 6 Urban 17.6 (13.2, 23.0) 59 (20, 80) 12 stable stable trend 1.8 (-2.9, 7.2)
Morgan County 6 Urban 18.0 (11.5, 27.3) 58 (8, 82) 5
*
*
DeKalb County 6 Rural 18.0 (11.1, 28.0) 57 (6, 82) 4 stable stable trend 0.6 (-4.2, 6.5)
Union County 6 Urban 18.1 (11.3, 27.9) 56 (5, 82) 5 rising rising trend 4.1 (0.2, 9.4)
Wilson County 6 Urban 18.4 (15.5, 21.7) 55 (27, 69) 30 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.2, 4.7)
Henry County 6 Rural 19.0 (13.4, 26.4) 54 (10, 80) 9 stable stable trend 2.5 (-1.9, 7.9)
Dickson County 6 Urban 19.0 (14.4, 24.7) 53 (16, 76) 12 stable stable trend 2.8 (-1.6, 8.2)
Jackson County 6 Rural 19.4 (10.3, 33.8) 52 (1, 82) 3
*
*
Cheatham County 6 Urban 19.4 (13.9, 26.4) 51 (10, 80) 9
*
*
Campbell County 6 Urban 19.4 (14.4, 25.8) 50 (12, 79) 11 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.5, 4.7)
Polk County 6 Urban 19.5 (12.2, 30.1) 49 (3, 82) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-5.0, 2.2)
Cannon County 6 Urban 19.6 (10.9, 32.5) 48 (1, 82) 3 falling falling trend -45.9 (-79.2, -2.0)
Bradley County 6 Urban 19.6 (16.3, 23.5) 47 (19, 69) 25 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.5, 4.6)
Lawrence County 6 Rural 19.7 (14.6, 26.1) 46 (11, 75) 11 stable stable trend 1.7 (-2.0, 6.3)
Coffee County 6 Rural 20.2 (15.6, 25.7) 45 (13, 75) 14 stable stable trend 2.2 (-1.5, 6.6)
Claiborne County 6 Rural 20.2 (14.3, 27.9) 44 (6, 78) 9 stable stable trend -6.2 (-42.5, 3.1)
Johnson County 6 Rural 20.4 (12.9, 31.3) 43 (2, 82) 5
*
*
Cocke County 6 Rural 20.5 (15.3, 27.2) 42 (8, 76) 11 stable stable trend -1.5 (-6.5, 4.0)
Humphreys County 6 Rural 20.7 (13.1, 31.3) 41 (2, 82) 5 stable stable trend -4.0 (-16.7, 2.3)
Weakley County 6 Rural 20.7 (14.6, 28.6) 40 (5, 79) 8 stable stable trend -21.3 (-42.4, 5.4)
Sumner County 6 Urban 20.7 (18.0, 23.6) 39 (21, 61) 46 stable stable trend -3.3 (-18.7, 0.2)
Scott County 6 Rural 20.9 (13.4, 31.2) 38 (2, 82) 5 stable stable trend -0.3 (-4.4, 3.9)
Marion County 6 Urban 21.0 (14.8, 29.1) 37 (5, 78) 8 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.4, 4.7)
Marshall County 6 Rural 21.3 (15.2, 29.1) 36 (4, 75) 9 stable stable trend 10.8 (-3.9, 32.7)
Grundy County 6 Rural 21.4 (12.9, 33.9) 35 (1, 82) 4
*
*
Smith County 6 Urban 22.0 (14.1, 32.9) 34 (1, 81) 5 stable stable trend 1.2 (-3.5, 6.8)
Robertson County 6 Urban 22.2 (17.7, 27.5) 33 (9, 66) 18 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.9, 3.4)
Hamilton County 6 Urban 22.4 (20.4, 24.6) 32 (18, 51) 100 falling falling trend -11.2 (-19.7, -3.5)
Anderson County 6 Urban 22.7 (18.6, 27.6) 31 (9, 61) 23 stable stable trend 0.3 (-28.7, 13.2)
Benton County 6 Rural 22.8 (14.3, 35.1) 30 (1, 81) 5 stable stable trend 0.5 (-5.0, 6.9)
Franklin County 6 Rural 23.1 (17.6, 29.9) 29 (4, 67) 13 stable stable trend 2.2 (-1.1, 6.1)
Overton County 6 Rural 23.1 (15.7, 33.0) 28 (1, 76) 7 stable stable trend 0.7 (-4.9, 7.1)
Fentress County 6 Rural 23.1 (14.7, 34.8) 27 (1, 80) 6
*
*
Fayette County 6 Urban 23.1 (17.6, 30.0) 26 (4, 68) 13 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.7, 4.8)
White County 6 Rural 23.3 (16.5, 32.2) 25 (1, 75) 8 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.5, 5.0)
Bledsoe County 6 Rural 23.6 (15.1, 36.0) 24 (1, 80) 5
*
*
Williamson County 6 Urban 24.0 (21.3, 26.8) 23 (13, 47) 64 stable stable trend -1.3 (-21.4, 6.2)
Rhea County 6 Rural 24.7 (18.2, 32.8) 22 (2, 68) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-5.5, 5.3)
Putnam County 6 Rural 25.1 (20.6, 30.3) 21 (5, 54) 23 stable stable trend 1.4 (-3.3, 7.0)
Carter County 6 Urban 25.6 (20.7, 31.5) 20 (3, 56) 21 rising rising trend 4.1 (0.8, 8.1)
McMinn County 6 Rural 25.6 (20.5, 31.8) 19 (2, 56) 19 stable stable trend 2.8 (-0.2, 6.3)
Warren County 6 Rural 25.9 (19.9, 33.3) 18 (1, 60) 13 stable stable trend 2.7 (-0.7, 7.1)
Sequatchie County 6 Urban 26.0 (16.9, 38.6) 17 (1, 78) 6
*
*
Roane County 6 Urban 26.1 (20.8, 32.4) 16 (2, 56) 20 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.6, 5.4)
Monroe County 6 Rural 26.3 (20.8, 33.0) 15 (1, 54) 18 rising rising trend 3.2 (0.3, 7.0)
Unicoi County 6 Urban 27.0 (18.2, 39.1) 14 (1, 72) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-6.4, 2.2)
Chester County 6 Urban 27.5 (17.6, 41.0) 13 (1, 73) 5
*
*
Sevier County 6 Rural 28.4 (24.2, 33.1) 12 (1, 38) 36 stable stable trend -0.4 (-18.1, 5.8)
Cumberland County 6 Rural 28.7 (23.7, 34.7) 11 (1, 41) 31 stable stable trend -1.3 (-22.3, 1.7)
Knox County 6 Urban 29.1 (27.1, 31.3) 10 (4, 23) 160 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.0, 1.9)
Sullivan County 6 Urban 29.6 (26.3, 33.1) 9 (2, 27) 68 falling falling trend -2.1 (-5.3, -0.5)
Hamblen County 6 Urban 29.9 (24.5, 36.2) 8 (1, 39) 23 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.6, -0.5)
Washington County 6 Urban 30.9 (27.1, 35.1) 7 (1, 24) 51 stable stable trend -1.6 (-11.9, 2.2)
Greene County 6 Rural 32.0 (26.9, 38.0) 6 (1, 29) 30 rising rising trend 4.0 (2.2, 6.2)
Hawkins County 6 Urban 33.1 (27.3, 40.0) 5 (1, 27) 25 stable stable trend 5.9 (-2.5, 21.3)
Jefferson County 6 Urban 33.3 (27.4, 40.2) 4 (1, 28) 24 stable stable trend 1.0 (-14.0, 5.7)
Grainger County 6 Urban 33.6 (24.3, 45.4) 3 (1, 50) 10 stable stable trend -0.1 (-4.3, 4.4)
Blount County 6 Urban 34.8 (31.0, 39.1) 2 (1, 14) 64 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.3, 2.6)
Loudon County 6 Urban 35.0 (29.2, 41.7) 1 (1, 22) 31 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.9, 5.5)
Clay County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Crockett County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Decatur County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hancock County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Houston County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lewis County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Moore County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perry County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pickett County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Trousdale County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Van Buren County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wayne County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/06/2024 5:47 am.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.

Data cannot be shown for the following areas. For more information on what areas are suppressed or not available, please refer to the table.
Clay, Crockett, Decatur, Hancock, Houston, Lake, Lewis, Moore, Perry, Pickett, Trousdale, Van Buren, Wayne

† 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.
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/Historic Combined Summary Stage (2004+).
⋔ 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.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.
* 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).
Source: SEER and NPCR data. For more specific information please see the table.

Data for the United States does not include data from Indiana.
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