A VERY interesting read. It should, however, be taken as just one voice out of many. For example, I have Gleason 3+3 which according to the article should not be treated initially and should be "active surveillance". In my case, 3 different doctors told me that based on the size of the lesion (tumor), they would not recommend active surveillance and recommend treatment. In my case I'm choosing radiation.
"Surgery is never required for this disease and is considered gross overtreatment for low risk Gleasons by progressive urologists."
Nothing in life is this absolute......