I agree to report the death figure (or lack of them) out of context is misleading. The study actually does have some useful information if read in context.
Quite often we have new posts from people in a panic having just been diagnosed. They have massive anxiety waiting for results and are worried because treatment isn't happening right now.
It will be very reassuring for them, to be able to quote that 75% of people in their position would not even have disease progression after 15 years. So a six month wait for treatment doesn't amount to more than a hill of beans in the long term.
Of course plenty of newby posters have high risk disease, or are already locally advanced, so I am not for one second saying they can ignore the disease for 15 years, but they certainly can go to bed that night and not fear that tomorrow they will die.
It also shows the outcomes for RP and RT are almost identical with a slight advantage to RP, but this is based on technology as it was about 15 years ago, it has moved on.
As there is a slow rate of disease progression, I would argue it suggests Active Surveillance is a viable strategy for delaying side effects for around a decade (not if high risk though).