I would like to think I could make a better decision after 2+ years better understanding the challenges of PC than when I was a few months in and accepted the best recommendation I could find, which was for RALP given my intermediate unfavorable, multifocal cancer. But practically I'm only 2+ years into the journey and that does not sound like a very experienced urologist, does it?!
What I would say is that I've learned that "similar outcomes" does not mean what it sounds like. Why? Because statistically the PC most of us are finding takes too long to kill us. This confounds the research and in my mind directly leads to the chaos in which proponents of different treatments can argue there is no difference.
Googling the life expectancy of a 65 y.o. healthy male, I get about 83, i.e. 18 years. To actually die from PC with the various treatments available now typically takes 15-20 years. (If it isn't treated, that might not be true. But it isn't good medical science to not treat people who benefit from treatment, so these statistics are going to be less available. )
So here we have one of those classic dilemmas: short term suffering for long term (likely) benefit vs seize the day because tomorrow we may die anyway. It turns out my family was rather keen on keeping me around longer and that was a significant factor in my decision. For the research docs who were dealing with PC every day (as medical providers) I was a clear candidate for RALP they were not even going to do. I actually found a third generation urologist whose father was one of the top research urologists, and he himself was already around 15 years into his own career. (That's probably unusual enough some of you can figure out the name!)
The logical side of my brain told me I could trust his input, it wasn't self-serving, and so I acted on his advice. But I still don't know where I will be in 18 years, and I certainly don't know where I would be if I had taken a different path or not had access to that input.