I think Tall has a good point ( as usuall too), some docs sample one or two or a couple others sample alot more....even within similar appearing risk group levels, sooooooooooooooooooo....my s.w.a.g. is there are suspecions as to where are these bugggers hidding (if they are).....and also as when using the s.w.a.g= the scientific wild arse guess method, it comes under practicing medicine.
Our support group had one surgeon guy whom didn't sample nodes, usually even with some high enough Gleason scorings...I was surprised he answered my question that bluntly....should have skated and danced it a little, with explatory verbage to make a c.y.a situation look righteous before a crowd of patients. So as always questionable and controversial stuff and makes our outcomes more a flip of the coin vs. the so called hard evidence based medicine mantras we usually hear piped into our brains. Same goes for pathology.....lacks more than we are lead to believe, it is not total definity, might be close though.