Yes, agreed, a second urologist opinion would be smart, but what are the odds he'll say "go for the MRI instead?" Do they all want to do expensive, fast biopsies?
Personally, I'd go for the mri first as it's less intrusive. Then if zero suspicions, I'd watch and wait. I went this path ... but something did show up so the biopsy followed almost immediately.
2017: PSA 4.4, family history.MRI->lesions indicated.
Biopsy:carcinoma several cores, Gleason 3+4
open prostatectomy -> hist. report: pT2c, 2 pos margins. Gleason revised down to 3+3.
Navic. fossa stricture likely from catheter-> dilations ->urethroplasty op. 2018
PSA: Post surgery-Present: 0.01,0.012,0.025,0.03,0.02