You are still hung up on the issue of surgery.   For some patients,
radiation is a better choice and for some patients surgery is a better
choice.  There is no one answer in all cases.  If Hennenfent actually
says that, then he is misleading his readers.

It does appear that on the average, radiation is as effective as surgery
for up to 10 years.  It seems plausible that it is as effective for
longer than that, but the data is not in yet.   In the 1980s surgery was
not very effective at all.  That was because they couldn't deliver an
adequate dose of radation to the prostate without damaging surrounding
tissues.  But modern methods are much more effective at direction the
radiation to the appropriate areas and avoiding collateral damage, so
they can use much higher doses.  But these newer methods have not been
in use long enough to collect very long term data.

The side effects of surgery and radiation are not that different.  Both
can produce impotence and incontinence.  Radiation is a bit more likely
to cause bowel problems.  Most often these side effects can be treated.
 In older men, over 70, impotence after surgery is more likely than
after radiation  (75 percent compared to 50 percent).   In younger men,
if the surgeon is well qualified,  there is not much difference.

Since this man was 71, if impotence was an issue for him---and it isn't
for all men---then indeed radiation was a good choice for him.  For some
men, like myself, surgery is preferable for a variety of reasons.  I
understood the risks of urinary problems and impotence for both and
figured for me there wasn't much difference.  In addition, I wasn't too
excited about the possibility of bowel problems.  Finally,  I liked the
idea that right after the surgery I would have a good idea from the
pathology report of the state of my treatment.  On the other hand, a
good friend of mine with a similar case chose radiation.  In his case,
the primary issue was that, with his health insurance, he had access to
a world class radiation therapist but only a so-so surgeon.  That was
not a factor for me because my surgeon is highly qualified.  But had I
been in his situation, I probably also would have chosen radiation, and
had he been in mine, he probably would have chosen surgery.

The upshot is that, as I said, there is not one answer for all men, and
anyone who says that is misleading people.

That is sort of moot at this point, isn't it?  Since they discovered he
had cancer, they treated it.  They would almost certainly have done so
anyway even if they felt prostatitis contributed to his problems before
treatment.  (In fact, BPH or prostatisis rather than prostate cancer
almost certainly caused his symptoms, and the cancer was only found
incidentally in the process.)  The radiation essentially destroyed his
prostate, and after he recovers from the treatment, any prostatitis he
once had won't be relevant to his current situation.