I don't know if this will help you or increase your worries more. If you have a biopsy, you stand a good chance of finding something because a lot of men have a trace of cancer by this age. What is unknown is whether you should do something about it, because in many cases it will be slow growing and you will shake off these mortal coils from some other cause at a ripe old age. The Gleason score provides some information, but most men end up with a 6 or 7, which doesn't fully answer the question because it is midrange.
I also had a slight abnormality in a DRE, so I had a biopsy (and by the way, if you have a biopsy, ask how many cores they are going to do, 6 was old thinking and nowdays 12 up to 18 is thought to be better. The more the better chance of finding something if it is present, like 'searching for the seeds in a strawberry' is how I heard it described.). The abnormality turned out to be nothing, but to make a long story short they found a trace (less than 5% on one core out of 18) of possible cancer (2 out of 3 pathologist's opinions). I eventually went the route of robotic prostatectomy, and am 'on the other side' with little after effects except still waiting for my sex life to pick up more (but it is headed up). My post operation pathology report still showed very very little involvement.
Would I change what I did? Probably not. But like other replies, I don't think what I faced is in the same category as a woman facing breast cancer. I think I got caught by the improved early detection systems, and that the concern to me was not whether I would die, but whether I would have the same quality of life (sex and incontinence issues, as you'll read about here).