I chose to use a data-driven approach to select a treatment.
> Data indicate that recurrence rates comparing surgery vs radiation are statistically equivalent (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2214122), so choose the one that causes the least harm.

> Dr. Kwon (of Mayo Clinic) mentions similar numbers, the only difference being where recurrence occurs (https://youtu.be/Q2joD360_pI).

> As for pathology grade matching needle biopsy grade (though results vary slightly study-to-study), this 2019 paper out of the UK indicated that initial biopsy and pathological grade matched 59% of the time, while upgrades occurred 25% of the time and downgrades occurred 15% of the time: https://bmcurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12894-019-0526-9

Yes, surgery does offer better analysis of the tissue - after the fact (the numbers are similar or better 75% of the time in that study). And with all the scans, tests, liquid biopsy, genetic, genomic, and many more, sufficient data can be gathered for a good treatment plan without cutting off an appendage “just to see.”

I just think that with today’s modern radiation technologies (which continually improve) along with adjuvant therapies, there is no longer a documented need to remove that body part.

But, that’s what’s great about having treatment choices. We each get to choose the one that suits us the best and then we each get to live with that decision.