Hi,

Mainly recommendation of the consultant (urology surgeon) who said that I was a "round peg in a round hole" and ideal for surgery considering age, fitness and progress of the disease.
We discussed radio therapy, and I was reassured that I had been discussed in their multi-disciplinary cases and surgery proposed. Otherwise I was a little concerned that a surgeon would recommend only surgery.

The advantage that was offered to me is that it should be a treatment that removes the unhealthy tissue entirely.

The disadvantages are in the possible side effects: I concentrated mostly on the erectile difficulties (the pills didn't work for my late father I'm told). But the continence was also discussed and I was told these are usually transitory, but can also be brought about by other therapies.

 Also considering the issue that originally took me to the GP, I was told that radio therapy is less helpful.

Are you getting any advice from your clinicians?