For younger men diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer, urologists often tell them, "erectile function preservation is better in younger men, so have it out now." A new analysis from Memorial Sloan Kettering demonstrates why that is bad advice. They demonstrate that the expected loss of erectile function due to surgery is never compensated for by better recovery in younger man and the age-related decline in erectile function while waiting on active surveillance. This was true even if active surveillance only delayed surgery for 5 years.
The MSK study said...
Small differences in erectile function recovery in younger men are offset by a
longer period of time living with decreased postoperative function. Better erectile recovery in younger men should not be a factor used to recommend immediate surgery in patients suitable for active surveillance, even if crossover to surgery is predicted within a short period of time
Improved Recovery of Erectile Function in Younger Men after Radical Prostatectomy: Does it Justify Immediate Surgery in Low-risk Patients?This is the same conclusion I reached when I looked at the data last year:
Can a man be too young for active surveillance?I found that this was true for both potency and continence.
Coming from MSK and with John Mulhall's name attached to it, I hope it will make more young men and their urologists take notice.