There's a research paper I read (but don't seem to have saved) that looks at success of prostatectomies (in terms of length of time before biochemical recurrence) verses diagnosis before treatment. They used the three high risk ratings as the markers to check against, i.e.
Presenting PSA >= 20;
Gleason >= 8;
T3 or above.
Basically, your chance of biochemical recurrence is quite low if you are not high risk in any of these 3 catagories, but increases if 1 or 2 of these apply, and if I recall correctly is around 50% if all 3 apply.
Of course, these are general stats, and there may be reasons why they don't apply to you. It's good to put the assumptions you are making to your consultants, so they can tell you if any are invalid, of if there's something about your case which means you should be considering other factors.
Of course, what risk you chose to accept is up to you, but I would suggest that most people would probably not go through a prostatectomy if they thought it had only a 50% chance of success, and failure meant having to do RT and HT too. The probability of things like ED and urinary incontinence if you have both radical procedures is very significantly higher than with just either one alone.
Edited by member 21 Dec 2019 at 14:12
| Reason: Not specified