Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Tennessee by County

Thyroid (All Stages^), 2013-2017

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

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
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 *** 12.5 (12.1, 12.9) N/A 875 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.3, 0.5)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 *** 14.3 (14.3, 14.4) N/A 48,211 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.5, -0.8)
Sequatchie County 6 *** 21.3 (11.8, 35.3) 1 (1, 57) 3
*
*
Franklin County 6 *** 21.2 (15.2, 28.8) 2 (1, 39) 9 rising rising trend 7.7 (3.7, 11.9)
Williamson County 6 *** 20.5 (17.8, 23.5) 3 (1, 16) 44 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.5, 4.4)
Carroll County 6 *** 19.6 (12.7, 28.7) 4 (1, 52) 6
*
*
Campbell County 6 *** 19.4 (13.9, 26.5) 5 (1, 45) 9 stable stable trend 1.7 (-1.7, 5.2)
Scott County 6 *** 19.2 (11.9, 29.3) 6 (1, 55) 4 stable stable trend 2.0 (-3.7, 8.0)
Jefferson County 6 *** 18.6 (13.7, 24.7) 7 (1, 45) 11 stable stable trend 3.9 (-0.4, 8.3)
Bradley County 6 *** 18.3 (14.8, 22.4) 8 (1, 35) 20 rising rising trend 6.9 (2.0, 12.0)
Maury County 6 *** 17.8 (14.1, 22.2) 9 (1, 37) 17 stable stable trend 3.3 (-0.5, 7.2)
Johnson County 6 *** 17.3 (9.9, 28.1) 10 (1, 58) 4
*
*
Hawkins County 6 *** 16.8 (12.2, 22.5) 11 (1, 50) 10 stable stable trend 2.3 (-0.7, 5.5)
Loudon County 6 *** 16.4 (11.7, 22.5) 12 (1, 52) 10 stable stable trend 4.0 (-3.8, 12.4)
Overton County 6 *** 15.6 (8.9, 25.3) 13 (1, 58) 3
*
*
Claiborne County 6 *** 15.2 (9.9, 22.4) 14 (1, 57) 6 stable stable trend 5.4 (-0.9, 12.1)
Sullivan County 6 *** 15.2 (12.6, 18.2) 15 (5, 43) 27 rising rising trend 5.1 (1.8, 8.4)
Sumner County 6 *** 15.2 (12.7, 18.0) 16 (5, 43) 28 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.7, 0.6)
Cheatham County 6 *** 15.1 (10.3, 21.4) 17 (1, 56) 7 stable stable trend -5.4 (-13.6, 3.6)
Rutherford County 6 *** 15.0 (13.1, 17.2) 18 (7, 40) 43 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.9, 4.2)
Lawrence County 6 *** 14.9 (10.2, 21.1) 19 (1, 55) 7 stable stable trend 0.3 (-5.0, 6.0)
Giles County 6 *** 14.8 (9.5, 22.0) 20 (1, 57) 6
*
*
Roane County 6 *** 14.7 (10.3, 20.4) 21 (2, 54) 9 stable stable trend 3.5 (-0.5, 7.8)
Knox County 6 *** 14.7 (13.1, 16.3) 22 (9, 38) 70 rising rising trend 4.3 (2.1, 6.5)
Grainger County 6 *** 14.6 (8.4, 23.6) 23 (1, 58) 4 stable stable trend 1.0 (-4.3, 6.5)
Anderson County 6 *** 14.5 (10.9, 19.0) 24 (3, 55) 12 stable stable trend 3.5 (-1.6, 8.7)
White County 6 *** 14.4 (8.7, 22.6) 25 (1, 58) 4 stable stable trend 1.9 (-3.0, 7.2)
Sevier County 6 *** 14.4 (11.2, 18.1) 26 (5, 52) 16 rising rising trend 4.5 (0.5, 8.7)
Hickman County 6 *** 14.0 (8.3, 22.2) 27 (1, 58) 4 stable stable trend 4.7 (-0.6, 10.3)
Lincoln County 6 *** 14.0 (8.9, 20.9) 28 (1, 57) 5 stable stable trend 2.6 (-4.3, 10.1)
Coffee County 6 *** 14.0 (9.9, 19.1) 29 (3, 56) 8 stable stable trend -15.6 (-39.1, 17.0)
Greene County 6 *** 13.7 (10.1, 18.3) 30 (4, 55) 10 rising rising trend 7.6 (2.9, 12.4)
Dickson County 6 *** 13.3 (9.2, 18.5) 31 (3, 57) 7 stable stable trend 1.5 (-2.4, 5.6)
Washington County 6 *** 13.0 (10.3, 16.1) 32 (9, 53) 18 rising rising trend 3.4 (0.2, 6.7)
Wilson County 6 *** 12.9 (10.4, 16.0) 33 (9, 53) 18 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.4, 3.4)
Weakley County 6 *** 12.8 (7.7, 19.8) 34 (2, 58) 4
*
*
Hamblen County 6 *** 12.6 (9.0, 17.2) 35 (6, 57) 9 stable stable trend 3.9 (-1.4, 9.4)
Cocke County 6 *** 12.4 (7.9, 18.6) 36 (4, 58) 5 stable stable trend 2.1 (-3.9, 8.4)
Blount County 6 *** 12.3 (9.7, 15.4) 37 (12, 54) 17 stable stable trend 1.2 (-3.9, 6.6)
Montgomery County 6 *** 12.3 (10.0, 14.9) 38 (14, 54) 21 falling falling trend -4.9 (-8.9, -0.7)
Cumberland County 6 *** 12.2 (8.1, 17.7) 39 (5, 58) 7 stable stable trend -34.6 (-64.7, 21.0)
Robertson County 6 *** 12.0 (8.7, 16.2) 40 (9, 57) 9 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.7, 1.7)
Marshall County 6 *** 11.9 (7.0, 18.8) 41 (3, 58) 4 stable stable trend 14.9 (-15.6, 56.4)
Carter County 6 *** 11.7 (7.9, 16.5) 42 (8, 58) 7 stable stable trend 1.5 (-4.6, 8.1)
Marion County 6 *** 11.6 (6.6, 18.8) 43 (3, 58) 4 stable stable trend -9.3 (-36.9, 30.4)
Dyer County 6 *** 11.6 (7.3, 17.6) 44 (5, 58) 5
*
*
McMinn County 6 *** 11.3 (7.7, 16.0) 45 (9, 58) 7 stable stable trend 2.1 (-2.9, 7.3)
Hamilton County 6 *** 11.2 (9.7, 12.9) 46 (25, 53) 43 stable stable trend -1.9 (-6.3, 2.7)
Gibson County 6 *** 11.0 (7.3, 16.0) 47 (9, 58) 6 rising rising trend 5.1 (0.7, 9.8)
Davidson County 6 *** 11.0 (9.9, 12.2) 48 (32, 53) 77 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.1, -1.4)
Obion County 6 *** 10.7 (6.3, 17.2) 49 (5, 58) 4
*
*
Rhea County 6 *** 10.6 (6.2, 17.0) 50 (6, 58) 4
*
*
Henry County 6 *** 10.3 (6.0, 16.7) 51 (8, 58) 4
*
*
Warren County 6 *** 10.1 (6.3, 15.4) 52 (11, 58) 5 stable stable trend -2.1 (-7.9, 4.1)
Tipton County 6 *** 9.9 (6.8, 14.0) 53 (15, 58) 7 stable stable trend 5.2 (-0.5, 11.1)
Putnam County 6 *** 9.1 (6.3, 12.9) 54 (22, 58) 7 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.1, 5.0)
Shelby County 6 *** 8.7 (7.9, 9.7) 55 (45, 57) 81 stable stable trend 1.6 (-0.4, 3.6)
Monroe County 6 *** 8.6 (5.3, 13.1) 56 (23, 58) 5 stable stable trend -0.4 (-6.2, 5.8)
Bedford County 6 *** 8.1 (4.9, 12.7) 57 (23, 58) 4
*
*
Madison County 6 *** 6.2 (4.2, 8.9) 58 (48, 58) 7 stable stable trend 4.0 (-1.1, 9.3)
Benton County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bledsoe County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cannon County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chester County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Crockett County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
DeKalb County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Decatur County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Fayette County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Fentress County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grundy County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hancock County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hardeman County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hardin County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Haywood County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Henderson County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Houston County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Humphreys County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lauderdale County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lewis County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Macon County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McNairy County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Meigs County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Moore County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Morgan County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perry County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pickett County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Smith County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stewart County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Trousdale County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Unicoi County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Union County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Van Buren County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wayne County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 04/19/2021 3:43 pm.

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 1969-2017 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.

* 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 (2001-2017) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2019 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database (2001-2017) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2019 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 1969-2017 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2019 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