Sunshine, my best wishes to your husband and you. The point of diagnosis and being given options was probably more stressful than anything subsequent when I had chosen my "conveyor belt" and had to accept what happened.
The dilemma is that all the main options have similar overall outcomes based on historic data. They do though have different experiences you have to go through, and different side effects.
Surgery is tough short term - the fact the robotic procedures leave only small surface incisions make one forget how major it is. It takes a few months to recover, and you will have a catheter for the first couple of weeks and with most hospitals anti-clotting injections. The side effects range from nearly nothing for a few lucky folk, to long term issues of incontinence and/or erectile dysfunction.
Radiotherapy is easier (though not that easy) and usually is given alongside hormone therapy which makes it more effective. Recovery is quicker. There are short term side effects from the radiotherapy, like tiredness and bowel sensitivity. The lack of testosterone during hormone therapy means low libido, a tendency to put on weight, and various other issues and a fair proportion of patients find those effects remaining after the treatment finishes. Long term (20+ years) there is risk of cancer in the tissues near the prostate that have bad some exposure to radiation, particularly bladder and colon.
Brachytherapy is another form of radiotherapy where instead of being exposed to a beam, radioactive pellets are inserted into the prostate. I haven't experienced that but some people on this forum have done well with it.
Active surveillance sounds like doing nothing, but since they are keeping tags on it it actually means doing one of the above once it is clear the cancer is progessing. That means having a few years without suffering any of those side effects, and if you are lucky and your situation remains stable that delay could be quite a long time.
Another thing people take into account is what happens if the cancer comes back (PSA increase). If you have had surgery they can still radiate the nearby areas where any remaining cancer cells might be, if you have had radiotherapy first time it isn't often possible then to do surgery.
The usual advice is for surgery if younger and radio if older. I think the argument is that after 70 the risk of cancer in your nineties is less of an issue plus your body may take a lot longer to recover from surgery than a younger patient. But on the other hand surgery side effects of poor continence and/or erectile function may (arguably) be tougher to deal with in your fifties. AS delays side effects but for some people the anxiety is unbearable. No one else can say what is right for you.
The other thing I always add is: the statistics on recurrence over 10 years inevitably relate to the treatments as they were over 10 years ago. In that time things have improved. With surgery I think it is mostly more experienced surgeons and some tweaks to procedure but essentially the same operation; with radiotherapy a new generation of machines has been introduced which are better at focussing the beam on the target area and give less risk of cancer to nearby tissues. But we don't yet have the 10-year figures for those!