Surgery? Radiation? Can I have an independent suggestion?

As a Canadian, I apologize in advance for my self-centered question. I have done all the preliminaries and now must make a choice. When asking urologists, they’d advocate for “cutting”. When talking to radiation oncologists, they’d say “radiate” - statistically, the odds are equal or better, and the side effects - well, perhaps, eventually, you might have to deal with those. Which leaves me, as someone reluctant to understand issues related to cancer that I never wanted to know, to make a decision.

In short, here are the parameters: over 4 months, PSA readings of 26, 21, and 25. Biopsy showed cancer in the left nodule, Gleason 3+4 in 5 out of 12 cores. Cribriform and suspected perineurial invasion. Bone scan and CT scan showed no metastasis. PET scan shows a significant uptake (3.7) in the prostate but also, no metastatic activity, except for a minuscule uptake in L4 lumber (but judged to be benign). That doesn’t eliminate microscopic events, I suppose. Also had a prior appetizer of a heart attack and had CABG (9 bypasses).

The question now: what would be an optional approach for me, specifically. ChatGPT says a short course of agonist/antagonist ADT, Brachytherapy, and EBRT. The urologist says “if you want it gone, call me”. The radiologist says “the isotopes are at your service”. How on earth can I make an informed decision that’s best for me if everyone advocates for what they do/know as the best approach?I suspect some answers might be - it depends what consequences you want to deal with - granted. But medically, what gives me the best chance to conquer this, well, shit?

Where would you take it?