@derbydog71
You wrote: "My urologist said that the biopsy is the better route to go instead of an MRI".
Hopefully you mean that he was recommending a biopsy as opposed to an MRI WITHOUT a biopsy? Yes, an MRI alone is not good enough, at least not currently. But an MRI plus biopsy... preferably a targeted "fusion" biopsy...is better.

My original urologist wanted to go right to a systematic biopsy without doing an MRI or even mentioning the existence of fusion biopsies, transpirennial fusion biopsies, etc.,...and why would any ethical and competent urologist recommend to a patient to do an untargeted biopsy when targeted biopsies are available? I still haven't found the answer to that question, but whatever the answer is I would consider it malpractice to not at least mention alternative superior procedures to a patient.
I'm not suggesting substituting an MRI for a biopsy, I'm just saying why do a "blind" systematic biopsy when an MRI at least offers a chance at finding some targets to shoot at, in addition to the systematic samples.