A question that really needs to be addressed is the efficacy of treatment. The recommendations seem to suggest that the treatment (keeping in mind we are talking about populations rather than individuals) doesn't seem to affect morbidity. In other words, treated or not the outcomes remain the same. If this is true, then the concept of early detection is of academic interest but not useful to the individual.
I think the main studies used for the committee to make their decisions were 9 years long. This would be sufficient data for a fast growing cancer like pancreatic but slow-growing (in most cases) prostate cancer can take 10-15 or longer to go from clinically insignificant to deadly. We need longer studies before an accurate recommendation on testing is made. It is only in the 10+ years that the morbidity between tested/untested is likely to diverge in a significant way.
And the morbidity rates of tested/untested 65-75 year old men in the study is irrelevant for a 50 year old man who has a much longer life expectancy. A lot of the 65-75 year old men are going to die of something else before the prostate cancer will get them. Not so with a 50 year old.