Kidney surgery went well. My father was discharged the next day, but we had to return to the ER due to vomiting and bowel movement issues. We stayed at the hospital for a few more days. Everything is fine so far.

Yesterday, we met with a radiologist oncologist, which was a bit confusing. He presented us with some treatment options:

Undergo radiotherapy first to increase the chance of avoiding surgery (complete response) for rectal cancer. In this case, he will receive an additional 2 weeks of radiotherapy.
Undergo chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy first, followed by surgery. There is still a chance for a complete response, but it's lower than with the first option.
The radiologist oncologist emphasized that surgery remains the gold standard even in cases of complete response. Not undergoing surgery requires close monitoring every 3 months.

I asked him about the pros and cons of starting with chemotherapy or radiotherapy first, apart from the benefits of surgery. He stated that there is no difference in the cure rate; it remains the same. Then, my sister asked him what he would recommend if the patient were his father. He replied that he would start with chemotherapy.

I couldn't understand why he would choose chemotherapy first if there is no difference in the cure rate between the two approaches, especially considering the additional benefit of radiotherapy. Maybe I missed something. He said we could start radiotherapy earlier than chemotherapy because radiotherapy doesn't affect the kidney. It doesn't require much more healing time after kidney surgery. This seems a benefit, but he never emphasized this when he compared those two options.

We haven't made a decision yet. We are scheduled to meet with the medical oncologist next week, and I want to hear his perspective.