Radiation or Active Survelliance

My first biopsy was several years ago because my primary doc found a lump on my prostate. Nothing was found. A couple years later my PSA had jumped a little, although still under 4. Due to my age at the time, and a brother having been treated for prostate cancer, my urologist suggested an MRI. Nothing was found. Last fall my PSA came back 4.2, and I underwent another biopsy. Bingo, 3+3, 3+3 Group 1. I was then referred to an oncologist for radiation. I'm 70 and in good health, I wasn't convinced I shouldn't just do active surveillance. My oncologist suggested we do a Decipher test that might help me with my decision. The test came back exactly .50. Not much help there!
A childhood friend, who lives in another state, was diagnosed about a year before me. His PSA is 9 and our Gleason scores are almost identical. My dilemma comes from what his urologist told him. He was told, "guys with these kinds of scores are never going to develop a tumor." He will continue to test and have MRIs.
I've made the decision to continue active surveillance and will have my PSA tested every 4 months. If things change, I will undergo radiation for 8 weeks.
I find it hard to believe what my friend was told. How can his urologist possibly know there is not going to be further development. Although, I had two uncles with prostate cancer and they both lived to old age.
I welcome any suggestions, opinions any other's experiences.