The main objective with Lyn's John of dealing with his cancer, at least thus far, has been achieved by surgery and then RT albeit with side effects. Now compare this with my situation. The surgeon I saw, also representing the view of the MDT, thought it preferable that I had RT because it was doubtful all the cancer could be removed by surgicallly taking away the Prostate. However, the surgeon did say he would do a Prostatectomy if I wished but didn't recommend it. So I took the advise and after much research had what appeared to be the best RT available at the time (2008). Results for the first 2 to three years looked good, low PSA and no sight of cancer on high quality MRI's. Unfortunately, subsequent increasing PSA's and MRI's showed a small tumour within the Prostate. (Maybe there were some radio resistant cancer cells or some missed by the RT). I did consider a salvage Prostatectomy at this point as there are a few surgeons who will do this much more difficult operation after RT because a radiated Prostate is much more difficult to work on. However, I was told that this would almost 100% be likely to result in permanent urinary incontenance, which is something I wanted to avoid. So I had salvage HIFU which has just been repeated. Now I can say that had I had my Prostate removed at the outset, I may well have needed RT to the Prostate Bed but would not have needed subsequent HIFU because of not having a Prostate. There is no indication of any cancer outside the Prostate Bed now. The Royal Marsden went along with RT first but with the benefit of hindsight was this best? In short, I would now rather be in John's clinical situation than mine, though of course no two cases are quite the same.