Hard to make recommendations with the minimum amount of data in your post. I did Tulsa Pro at Rochester two years ago with Dr. David Woodrum. I too was looking for a low risk of side effects and my Gleason 4+3 in a single lesion was easily treated. I also was OK with the fact that Tulsa does not have long-term data yet. I was willing to kick the can down the road a bit if I could avoid side effects for a few years, I was 65 when treated. I am two years out from my treatment and no evidence of disease at this point. I also had zero side effects. You are much younger, and you may have some other factors that would not make Tulsa a good choice for you. I took this off of the ChatGPT this morning:
TULSA-PRO can be a good alternative for some 53-year-olds with Gleason 3+4 disease, but whether it’s the best option depends on details such as:

* PSA level.
* MRI findings (number and location of lesions).
* Number and percentage of positive biopsy cores.
* Presence or absence of cribriform pattern or intraductal carcinoma.
* Genomic testing (such as Decipher), if performed.
Good luck.