@jaygk Definitely don't believe any pathology with the 5% of any gleason score, they are notorious for doing that to cover themselves for lawsuits. You are doing the right thing sending it out for another opinion. I want to mention on that - I have gone to about 5 places lately figuring out what to do, still no decision though I am talking to Mayo about Tulsa again or radiation, at any rate every place re-does pathology. I have 5 differing scores from 5 differing places. Pathology is just not very consistent. I believe Mayos latest for me. Not sure why though I theorize my small lesion and sample sizes influence it, but I get hugely differing scores everywhere on pathology. Even you get one more opinion, there are more to be had, keep in mind 5 places for me and 5 differing scores. These places all vary hugely, some are in lawsuits and cover themselves at your expense, we really need imaging processing with good trained algo's bringing some order to pathology grading (that is not called AI it is called image processing, we did image processing for decades where I worked at NIH). I don't believe in decipher, cancer has 1000's of genes these guys use 22 and haven't added more in a long time. I would feel better if decipher tests say 487 or 982 or whatever genes, but 22 well that is inadequate, I don't believe it either way it comes out.