Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Prostate (All Stages^), 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, 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 6 116.1 (114.6, 117.6) N/A 4,868 stable stable trend 2.5 (-0.1, 5.7)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 110.5 (110.2, 110.7) N/A 212,734 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.0, 4.1)
Anderson County 6 117.2 (104.6, 131.1) 29 (7, 62) 65 falling falling trend -5.5 (-15.6, -3.2)
Bedford County 6 116.0 (98.5, 135.9) 30 (4, 74) 33 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.9, 3.5)
Benton County 6 128.0 (101.2, 161.1) 14 (1, 76) 17 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.9, 3.6)
Bledsoe County 6 89.5 (67.0, 118.5) 76 (14, 95) 11 stable stable trend -2.1 (-7.0, 3.6)
Blount County 6 94.7 (86.0, 104.1) 65 (40, 85) 92 falling falling trend -4.7 (-11.9, -3.0)
Bradley County 6 90.9 (80.9, 102.0) 70 (41, 89) 61 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.5, 2.2)
Campbell County 6 115.8 (99.0, 135.0) 33 (5, 78) 35 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.8, 1.5)
Cannon County 6 95.8 (69.7, 129.3) 64 (4, 95) 9 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.7, 2.9)
Carroll County 6 131.1 (108.9, 157.0) 10 (1, 65) 25 stable stable trend -1.4 (-13.0, 2.5)
Carter County 6 71.2 (60.4, 83.8) 91 (71, 95) 32 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.0, 2.3)
Cheatham County 6 125.2 (105.4, 148.0) 20 (1, 65) 32 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.3, 1.9)
Chester County 6 121.9 (94.1, 156.2) 24 (1, 87) 13 stable stable trend 0.2 (-3.9, 5.4)
Claiborne County 6 115.8 (96.6, 138.3) 32 (2, 81) 27 rising rising trend 11.4 (4.4, 22.2)
Clay County 6 100.9 (69.0, 146.5) 52 (1, 95) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-5.1, 4.6)
Cocke County 6 91.2 (75.7, 109.6) 69 (29, 93) 26 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.4, 1.2)
Coffee County 6 115.9 (100.4, 133.3) 31 (6, 72) 42 stable stable trend 4.7 (-4.4, 24.6)
Crockett County 6 118.0 (88.3, 155.4) 28 (1, 90) 11 stable stable trend 1.9 (-2.5, 7.2)
Cumberland County 6 114.7 (102.6, 128.2) 35 (9, 64) 72 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.8, -2.0)
Davidson County 6 126.7 (121.1, 132.5) 16 (8, 33) 416 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.3, 0.3)
DeKalb County 6 89.9 (68.8, 116.3) 75 (16, 95) 13 stable stable trend -2.5 (-6.4, 1.5)
Decatur County 6 86.3 (61.6, 119.7) 78 (12, 95) 8 stable stable trend -2.4 (-5.1, 0.5)
Dickson County 6 108.6 (92.7, 126.6) 39 (9, 80) 35 rising rising trend 6.7 (0.1, 12.8)
Dyer County 6 95.9 (78.7, 116.1) 62 (19, 92) 23 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.7, 3.1)
Fayette County 6 141.2 (123.4, 161.4) 7 (1, 36) 48 stable stable trend -1.9 (-9.2, 0.3)
Fentress County 6 96.0 (73.4, 124.4) 61 (8, 94) 14 stable stable trend -2.8 (-8.1, 2.6)
Franklin County 6 119.7 (102.7, 139.0) 26 (3, 69) 37 rising rising trend 6.3 (1.8, 17.2)
Gibson County 6 119.4 (102.6, 138.4) 27 (3, 67) 37 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.2, 2.7)
Giles County 6 86.1 (69.2, 106.5) 79 (30, 95) 19 stable stable trend -2.2 (-5.5, 1.3)
Grainger County 6 95.8 (76.6, 119.3) 63 (12, 93) 18 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.3, 0.4)
Greene County 6 107.9 (95.4, 121.7) 43 (13, 76) 57 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.2, 4.8)
Grundy County 6 103.0 (76.0, 137.7) 48 (2, 94) 10 stable stable trend -2.9 (-7.4, 1.7)
Hamblen County 6 122.8 (107.9, 139.2) 23 (3, 58) 51 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.9, 2.9)
Hamilton County 6 126.6 (120.1, 133.5) 17 (8, 35) 294 stable stable trend 1.5 (-3.1, 8.3)
Hancock County 6 98.9 (60.3, 155.5) 56 (1, 95) 5 falling falling trend -10.1 (-37.3, -2.9)
Hardeman County 6 148.9 (123.8, 178.0) 3 (1, 46) 26 stable stable trend 2.1 (-0.1, 4.8)
Hardin County 6 90.2 (73.0, 111.2) 72 (25, 94) 20 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.2, 3.7)
Hawkins County 6 80.4 (68.9, 93.7) 88 (53, 94) 36 falling falling trend -5.5 (-20.3, -1.8)
Haywood County 6 139.6 (110.7, 174.8) 8 (1, 72) 17 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.1, 4.5)
Henderson County 6 97.2 (77.7, 120.5) 60 (12, 93) 18 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.9, 2.7)
Henry County 6 153.5 (132.4, 177.5) 2 (1, 29) 40 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.7, 1.9)
Hickman County 6 81.3 (63.1, 103.6) 87 (35, 95) 14 stable stable trend -1.6 (-6.5, 3.5)
Houston County 6 108.2 (73.6, 155.8) 41 (1, 95) 7 stable stable trend -1.5 (-6.7, 4.3)
Humphreys County 6 124.8 (99.7, 155.4) 21 (1, 81) 17 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.9, 4.4)
Jackson County 6 57.6 (38.6, 85.4) 95 (60, 95) 6 falling falling trend -5.1 (-9.0, -1.4)
Jefferson County 6 94.4 (81.5, 109.1) 66 (31, 89) 40 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.7, 0.4)
Johnson County 6 93.9 (72.3, 121.0) 67 (10, 94) 13 stable stable trend 1.6 (-1.9, 5.9)
Knox County 6 115.6 (109.8, 121.6) 34 (20, 48) 314 falling falling trend -4.2 (-6.4, -2.7)
Lake County 6 90.0 (54.4, 141.7) 74 (1, 95) 4 stable stable trend -0.3 (-8.0, 8.4)
Lauderdale County 6 101.6 (80.0, 127.5) 50 (8, 92) 16 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.6, 2.5)
Lawrence County 6 108.4 (91.7, 127.5) 40 (10, 83) 31 stable stable trend -2.7 (-5.5, 0.1)
Lewis County 6 157.7 (122.2, 201.7) 1 (1, 55) 14 stable stable trend 0.8 (-3.0, 5.5)
Lincoln County 6 70.0 (55.6, 87.4) 92 (60, 95) 17 falling falling trend -6.7 (-17.2, -3.3)
Loudon County 6 97.9 (85.6, 111.9) 57 (27, 87) 49 falling falling trend -5.2 (-21.2, -0.1)
Macon County 6 85.9 (65.5, 111.0) 80 (24, 95) 13 stable stable trend -2.2 (-6.1, 1.9)
Madison County 6 135.9 (122.9, 150.0) 9 (1, 35) 84 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.3, 2.2)
Marion County 6 106.1 (86.8, 129.0) 44 (5, 88) 22 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.0, 1.0)
Marshall County 6 143.9 (122.0, 169.0) 4 (1, 44) 32 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.8, 2.8)
Maury County 6 130.7 (117.7, 144.9) 11 (2, 41) 79 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 1.2)
McMinn County 6 84.9 (72.2, 99.6) 84 (42, 93) 33 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.7, 2.0)
McNairy County 6 102.0 (82.4, 125.5) 49 (8, 91) 20 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.9, 4.9)
Meigs County 6 85.7 (60.8, 119.1) 81 (15, 95) 8 stable stable trend -2.2 (-22.8, 6.8)
Monroe County 6 97.5 (83.4, 113.7) 58 (23, 88) 36 stable stable trend 0.6 (-7.6, 14.0)
Montgomery County 6 112.1 (101.5, 123.4) 37 (14, 67) 90 stable stable trend -1.4 (-9.8, 2.0)
Moore County 6 88.2 (56.3, 136.3) 77 (3, 95) 5 stable stable trend -1.9 (-9.2, 6.7)
Morgan County 6 114.3 (91.5, 141.7) 36 (2, 86) 18 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.0, 0.8)
Obion County 6 104.5 (86.1, 126.3) 46 (8, 88) 23 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.2, 3.5)
Overton County 6 81.7 (63.0, 104.9) 86 (33, 95) 14 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.9, -0.8)
Perry County 6 72.9 (46.9, 111.3) 90 (25, 95) 5 falling falling trend -8.5 (-40.2, -1.4)
Pickett County 6 69.1 (39.6, 121.2) 93 (14, 95) 3 stable stable trend -3.9 (-9.8, 2.0)
Polk County 6 73.8 (54.3, 99.3) 89 (41, 95) 10 stable stable trend 0.0 (-4.4, 5.2)
Putnam County 6 85.0 (73.6, 97.8) 83 (45, 92) 41 stable stable trend 6.0 (-2.3, 15.8)
Rhea County 6 93.3 (75.9, 113.9) 68 (19, 93) 21 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.3, 2.2)
Roane County 6 104.1 (90.9, 119.1) 47 (16, 84) 47 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.2, 1.9)
Robertson County 6 97.5 (84.3, 112.3) 59 (25, 88) 42 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.3, -0.1)
Rutherford County 6 126.4 (118.0, 135.1) 18 (7, 39) 188 rising rising trend 4.0 (1.2, 8.0)
Scott County 6 104.7 (81.6, 132.8) 45 (4, 92) 15 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.9, 4.4)
Sequatchie County 6 108.0 (82.1, 140.7) 42 (2, 93) 12 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.1, 3.2)
Sevier County 6 128.7 (116.9, 141.6) 13 (3, 44) 91 rising rising trend 10.1 (3.1, 20.8)
Shelby County 6 143.0 (138.1, 148.0) 5 (1, 14) 699 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.5, 5.9)
Smith County 6 109.5 (84.2, 140.5) 38 (2, 91) 14 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.8, 4.4)
Stewart County 6 82.8 (60.0, 113.1) 85 (20, 95) 9 stable stable trend -2.6 (-8.6, 4.0)
Sullivan County 6 90.2 (82.7, 98.3) 73 (48, 87) 109 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.3, -1.4)
Sumner County 6 121.8 (112.7, 131.5) 25 (8, 47) 141 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.7, -0.1)
Tipton County 6 125.8 (109.8, 143.6) 19 (2, 54) 47 falling falling trend -3.0 (-7.7, -0.5)
Trousdale County 6 128.9 (91.1, 177.9) 12 (1, 92) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-6.1, 4.8)
Unicoi County 6 85.4 (65.6, 110.7) 82 (22, 95) 13 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.3, 6.0)
Union County 6 90.8 (70.2, 116.7) 71 (16, 94) 14 stable stable trend -4.7 (-25.4, 6.3)
Van Buren County 6 67.9 (39.1, 115.0) 94 (14, 95) 4 falling falling trend -9.7 (-39.8, -3.0)
Warren County 6 99.1 (82.9, 117.8) 55 (15, 90) 27 falling falling trend -2.4 (-11.9, -0.1)
Washington County 6 99.5 (90.1, 109.7) 54 (31, 81) 86 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.0, 1.5)
Wayne County 6 101.1 (76.9, 131.4) 51 (3, 93) 12 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.6, 4.3)
Weakley County 6 126.7 (106.3, 150.4) 15 (1, 70) 28 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.6, 4.1)
White County 6 100.7 (81.6, 123.6) 53 (10, 91) 20 stable stable trend -3.2 (-6.5, 0.1)
Williamson County 6 141.3 (131.9, 151.1) 6 (1, 21) 184 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 1.1)
Wilson County 6 123.5 (113.0, 134.9) 22 (6, 48) 108 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 2.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 04/16/2024 6:26 pm.

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

Source: SEER and NPCR data. For more specific information please see the table.
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