Cancer is the leading cause of death among Hispanics/Latinos, who represent the largest racial/ethnic minority group in the United States, accounting for 17.8% (57.5 million) of the total population in the continental United States and Hawaii in 2016. In addition, more than 3 million Hispanic Americans live in the US territory of Puerto Rico. Every 3 years, the American Cancer Society reports on cancer occurrence, risk factors, and screening for Hispanics in the United States based on data from the National Cancer Institute, the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For the first time, contemporary incidence and mortality rates for Puerto Rico, which has a 99% Hispanic population, are also presented. An estimated 149,100 new cancer cases and 42,700 cancer deaths will occur among Hispanics in the continental United States and Hawaii in 2018. For all cancers combined, Hispanics have 25% lower incidence and 30% lower mortality compared with non‐Hispanic whites, although rates of infection‐related cancers, such as liver, are up to twice as high in Hispanics. However, these aggregated data mask substantial heterogeneity within the Hispanic population because of variable cancer risk, as exemplified by the substantial differences in the cancer burden between island Puerto Ricans and other US Hispanics. For example, during 2011 to 2015, prostate cancer incidence rates in Puerto Rico (146.6 per 100,000) were 60% higher than those in other US Hispanics combined (91.6 per 100,000) and 44% higher than those in non‐Hispanic whites (101.7 per 100,000). Prostate cancer is also the leading cause of cancer death among men in Puerto Rico, accounting for nearly 1 in 6 cancer deaths during 2011‐2015, whereas lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among other US Hispanic men combined. Variations in cancer risk are driven by differences in exposure to cancer‐causing infectious agents and behavioral risk factors as well as the prevalence of screening. Strategies for reducing cancer risk in Hispanic populations include targeted, culturally appropriate interventions for increasing the uptake of preventive services and reducing cancer risk factor prevalence, as well as additional funding for Puerto Rico‐specific and subgroup‐specific cancer research and surveillance.

Purpose People with HIV infection have an elevated risk of anal cancer. However, recent calendar trends are incompletely described, and which population subgroups might benefit from cancer screening is unknown. Methods We used linked data from HIV and cancer registries in nine US areas (1996 to 2012). We calculated standardized incidence ratios to compare anal cancer incidence in people with HIV infection with the general population, used Poisson regression to evaluate anal cancer incidence among subgroups of people with HIV and to assess temporal trends, and estimated the cumulative incidence of anal cancer to measure absolute risk. Results Among 447,953 people with HIV infection, anal cancer incidence was much higher than in the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 19.1; 95% CI, 18.1 to 20.0). Anal cancer incidence was highest among men who have sex with men (MSM), increased with age, and was higher in people with AIDS than in those without AIDS (ie, HIV only; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 3.82; 95% CI, 3.27 to 4.46). Incidence among people with HIV increased steeply during 1996 to 2000 (annual percentage change, 32.8%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 78.2%), reached a plateau during 2001 to 2008, and declined during 2008 to 2012 (annual percentage change, -7.2%; 95% CI, -14.4% to 0.6%). Cumulative incidence after a 5-year period was high for MSM with HIV only age 45 to 59 or ≥ 60 years (0.32% to 0.33%) and MSM with AIDS age 30 to 44, 45 to 59, or ≥ 60 years (0.29% to 0.65%). Conclusion Anal cancer incidence is markedly elevated among people with HIV infection, especially in MSM, older individuals, and people with AIDS. Recent declines may reflect delayed benefits of HIV treatment. Groups with high cumulative incidence of anal cancer may benefit from screening.

The Hispanic/Latino population is the second largest racial/ethnic group in the continental United States and Hawaii, accounting for 18% (60.6 million) of the total population. An additional 3 million Hispanic Americans live in Puerto Rico. Every 3 years, the American Cancer Society reports on cancer occurrence, risk factors, and screening for Hispanic individuals in the United States using the most recent population‐based data. An estimated 176,600 new cancer cases and 46,500 cancer deaths will occur among Hispanic individuals in the continental United States and Hawaii in 2021. Compared to non‐Hispanic Whites (NHWs), Hispanic men and women had 25%‐30% lower incidence (2014‐2018) and mortality (2015‐2019) rates for all cancers combined and lower rates for the most common cancers, although this gap is diminishing. For example, the colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence rate ratio for Hispanic compared with NHW individuals narrowed from 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73‐0.78) in 1995 to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89‐0.93) in 2018, reflecting delayed declines in CRC rates among Hispanic individuals in part because of slower uptake of screening. In contrast, Hispanic individuals have higher rates of infection‐related cancers, including approximately two‐fold higher incidence of liver and stomach cancer. Cervical cancer incidence is 32% higher among Hispanic women in the continental US and Hawaii and 78% higher among women in Puerto Rico compared to NHW women, yet is largely preventable through screening. Less access to care may be similarly reflected in the low prevalence of localized‐stage breast cancer among Hispanic women, 59% versus 67% among NHW women. Evidence‐based strategies for decreasing the cancer burden among the Hispanic population include the use of culturally appropriate lay health advisors and patient navigators and targeted, community‐based intervention programs to facilitate access to screening and promote healthy behaviors. In addition, the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on cancer trends and disparities in the Hispanic population should be closely monitored.

BackgroundLimited knowledge on the prevalence and distribution of risk factors impairs the planning and implementation of cardiovascular prevention programs in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region.Methods and FindingsPrevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, abnormal lipoprotein levels, obesity, and smoking were estimated from individual-level patient data pooled from population-based surveys (1998–2007, n = 31,009) from eight LAC countries and from a national survey of the United States (US) population (1999–2004) Age and gender specific prevalence were estimated and age-gender adjusted comparisons between both populations were conducted. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol in LAC were 5% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 3.4, 7.9), 20.2% (95% CI: 12.5, 31), and 53.3% (95% CI: 47, 63.4), respectively. Compared to LAC region’s average, the prevalence of each risk factor tended to be lower in Peru and higher in Chile. LAC women had higher prevalence of obesity and low HDL-cholesterol than men. Obesity, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertriglyceridemia were more prevalent in the US population than in LAC population (31 vs. 16.1%, 16.8 vs. 8.9%, and 36.2 vs. 26.5%, respectively). However, the prevalence of low HDL-cholesterol was higher in LAC than in the US (53.3 vs. 33.7%).ConclusionsMajor cardiovascular risk factors are highly prevalent in LAC region, in particular low HDL-cholesterol. In addition, marked differences do exist in this prevalence profile between LAC and the US. The observed patterns of obesity-related risk factors and their current and future impact on the burden of cardiovascular diseases remain to be explained.

Background Robust age-specific estimates of anal human papillomavirus (HPV) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in men can inform anal cancer prevention efforts. We aimed to evaluate the age-specific prevalence of anal HPV, HSIL, and their combination, in men, stratified by HIV status and sexuality. MethodsWe did a systematic review for studies on anal HPV infection in men and a pooled analysis of individuallevel data from eligible studies across four groups: HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM), HIV-negative MSM, HIV-positive men who have sex with women (MSW), and HIV-negative MSW. Studies were required to inform on type-specific HPV infection (at least HPV16), detected by use of a PCR-based test from anal swabs, HIV status, sexuality (MSM, including those who have sex with men only or also with women, or MSW), and age. Authors of eligible studies with a sample size of 200 participants or more were invited to share deidentified individual-level data on the above four variables. Authors of studies including 40 or more HIV-positive MSW or 40 or more men from Africa (irrespective of HIV status and sexuality) were also invited to share these data. Pooled estimates of anal high-risk HPV (HR-HPV, including HPV16,

Background Cervical cancer screening might contribute to the prevention of anal cancer in women. We aimed to investigate if routine cervical cancer screening results-namely high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cytohistopathology-predict anal HPV16 infection, anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) and, hence, anal cancer. MethodsWe did a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library for studies of cervical determinants of anal HPV and HSIL published up to Aug 31, 2018. We centrally reanalysed individual-level data from 13 427 women with paired cervical and anal samples from 36 studies. We compared anal high-risk HPV prevalence by HIV status, cervical high-risk HPV, cervical cytohistopathology, age, and their combinations, using prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% CIs. Among 3255 women with anal cytohistopathology results, PRs were similarly calculated for all anal HSIL and HPV16-positive anal HSIL. Findings Cervical and anal HPV infections were highly correlated. In HIV-negative women, anal HPV16 prevalence was 41% (447/1097) in cervical HPV16-positive versus 2% (214/8663) in cervical HPV16-negative women (PR 16•5, 95% CI 14•2-19•2, p<0•0001); these values were 46% (125/273) versus 11% (272/2588) in HIV-positive women (4•4, 3•7-5•3, p<0•0001). Anal HPV16 was also associated with cervical cytohistopathology, with a prevalence of 44% [101/228] for cervical cancer in HIV-negative women (PR vs normal cytology 14•1, 11•1-17•9, p<0•0001). Anal HSIL was associated with cervical high-risk HPV, both in HIV-negative women (from 2% [11/527] in cervical highrisk HPV-negative women up to 24% [33/138] in cervical HPV16-positive women; PR 12•9, 95% CI 6•7-24•8, p<0•0001) and HIV-positive women (from 8% [84/1094] to 17% [31/186]; 2•3, 1•6-3•4, p<0•0001). Anal HSIL was also associated with cervical cytohistopathology, both in HIV-negative women (from 1% [5/498] in normal cytology up to 22% [59/273] in cervical HSIL; PR 23•1, 9•4-57•0, p<0•0001) and HIV-positive women (from 7% [105/1421] to 25% [25/101]; 3•6, 2•5-5•3, p<0•0001). Prevalence of HPV16-positive anal HSIL was 23-25% in cervical HPV16-positive women older than 45 years (5/20 in HIV-negative women, 12/52 in HIV-positive women).Interpretation HPV-based cervical cancer screening programmes might help to stratify anal cancer risk, irrespective of HIV status. For targeted secondary anal cancer prevention in high-risk groups, HIV-negative women with cervical HPV16, especially those older than 45 years, have a similar anal cancer risk profile to that of HIV-positive women.

The study's objective was to examine the relationship between cesarean section delivery and the initiation of breastfeeding in a representative sample of 1695 Puerto Rican women aged 15 to 49 years, who delivered their last healthy singleton child in Puerto Rico between 1990 and 1996. Secondary analysis of data collected in the population-based cross-sectional study Puerto Rico Reproductive Health Survey was performed. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to examine the crude and covariate adjusted association between type of childbirth and initiation of breastfeeding. Overall, 36% of all births were performed by cesarean section, while initiation of breastfeeding was achieved by 61.5% of the women. Cesarean section was negatively related to breastfeeding initiation in multivariable logistic regression models (odds ratio = .64; 95% CI = 0.51-0.81) after controlling for confounding variables. Intervention programs that aim to promote breastfeeding and that provide special assistance to women undergoing this procedure should be developed.

Background Cut points for defining obesity have been derived from mortality data among Whites from Europe and the United States and their accuracy to screen for high risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in other ethnic groups has been questioned. Objective To compare the accuracy and to define ethnic and gender-specific optimal cut points for body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) when they are used in screening for high risk of CHD in the Latin-American and the US populations. Methods We estimated the accuracy and optimal cut points for BMI, WC and WHR to screen for CHD risk in Latin Americans (n=18 976), non-Hispanic Whites (Whites; n=8956), non-Hispanic Blacks (Blacks; n=5205) and Hispanics (n=5803). High risk of CHD was defined as a 10-year risk ≥20% (Framingham equation). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and the misclassification-cost term were used to assess accuracy and to identify optimal cut points. Results WHR had the highest AUC in all ethnic groups (from 0.75 to 0.82) and BMI had the lowest (from 0.50 to 0.59). Optimal cut point for BMI was similar across ethnic/gender groups (27 kg/m2). In women, cut points for WC (94 cm) and WHR (0.91) were consistent by ethnicity. In men, cut points for WC and WHR varied significantly with ethnicity: from 91 cm in Latin Americans to 102 cm in Whites, and from 0.94 in Latin Americans to 0.99 in Hispanics, respectively. Conclusion WHR is the most accurate anthropometric indicator to screen for high risk of CHD, whereas BMI is almost uninformative. The same BMI cut point should be used in all men and women. Unique cut points for WC and WHR should be used in all women, but ethnic-specific cut points seem warranted among men.