Many thanks for the answers and information. So mnay things to consider. Just a few thoughts.
1) My concern about multiple biopsies in quick succession is about wound healing and inflammation. Wound healing is a process that stimulates cell division and tissue remodelling through cytokine and growth factor signalling. At least in the lab, it seems that these are some of the factors that can promote cancer cell growth. My question really was about whether this is anything to be concerned about not (e.g. a PIN cell could get promoted to an adenocarcinoma cell with the relevant signals). I understand from the answers that in practical terms this is nothing to worry about.
2) My comment about radiation therapy in younger people leading to increased cancer risk later was not from google but from a specialist nurse. I do know that radiation is difficult to contain and the possibiity of harm from aberrant DNA damage repair is a possibility. I guess what I was asking was what were people's experience in real terms. It feels very much that different clinicians have their different treatment preferences, often based on extensive experience rather than latest scientific appraoches. Mnay thanks for giving some %s of risk that is very helpful to put things into perspective.
3) It was the nurse that told me that the NICE guidelines said to do TRUS first (I didn't read them before). I guess that I was dissappointed to have to do it twice now when I originally raised the issue of what was the best way considering the location and size of the lesions.
4) Yes I had a DRE, in which GP felt asymmtery which the trigger the subsequent MRI and biopsies.
5) I do understand that while prostate cancer is regarded as a solid tumour (unlike leukemia), it isn't solid as in a hard lump, it is more that the cells are more tightly packed (hence restricted diffusion under MRI). I am just surprised that given the size of the lesion and having a relatively small prostate that all 9 needles targeted to the lesions (2 of which are in the peripheral zone) completely missed as this was done guided by the MRI and ultrasound. Not sure why they want to do the TP under general when I beleive where I am the clicnic helped to establish a way of doing it under local. Probably, it is to do with who is free to do it.
6) I guess I was asking about at 60 you have an NHS heath check, so I would have expected a DRE and PSA at a minimum. While the risk obviously is lower between the ages of 60-65 of aggressive cancer it is still a possibility. It would also give a base line for future tests. At 60 (50 in scotland) you get a test for bowel cancer. Sure, I understand that there are resource limitations, possibility of diagnosis leading to uneccessary treatments etc. Looking at it a different way (I speculate here), I could have not gone to the GP and carried on as I am with sub-optimal weeing (I am sure that many men do this). If I then went in 5 years time, I could well have been in a different situation with poorer outcome. Indeed I know someone who did exactly this, went to the GP for hip pain, which turned out to metastasis. If he had gone 5 years earlier, or had a regular check, then maybe this would not have been the case if he head early treatment. I suppose that there is a balance between mass testing and individual need which aren't the same things?