My apologies T-man, I had meant to address my comment to Bill the American because of US approval of Gallium marker for scans.
In your case that level of scan might not be relevant tho metastases to glands near the prostate are not easily detected by MRI scans, as I found on my path. Bone scans are a different process.
If you were to choose RT it would seem sensible to know beforehand if there's any chance of mets being present. There are scans that can do a good job of detecting these now. There's a couple of reasons behind this thought. Firstly, if you do have mets to glands, it's possible to "include" them in radio therapy, not quite so precisely as with targeting the prostate but to the extent that it has a good chance of destroying them. Secondly, there's a limit to the amount of radiation that's regarded as acceptable, so one round to treat the prostate might get close to that level and a second round to take on mets later would just add to the amount of radiation you'd been exposed to.
If you choose to go with a prostatectomy you would still have the option of having RT later if you had any form of recurrence.
I had RT/HT and I'm very happy with the results at 1.5 years. If the treatment I've received here in Australia works out as well as they believe it will I could beat this disease without having to deal with recurrence BUT that's not certain of course. I'm 75, I had 81 GY of RT in 45 fractions/sessions and I've had no lasting or new side effects since the treatment.
So again, sorry if my post was slightly OT for you but I hope this information is still useful for you.
Jules