Hi Max,
It really depends on the type of tumor(s) you had when you started BCG whether maintenance is a good idea or not. If it was papillary, low grade, low risk no maintenance is required-is the usual approach. But for high risk tumors both the AUA and the EUA's guidelines say to use maintenance for best results, you can read the summaries here:
blcforum.com/smf/index.php/topic,176.0.html
There are other risk factors to consider, such as recurrence, side effects/tolerability of the patient, patient preference and many others, I'm sure.
The newest guidelines are saying that people who have bad side effects can receive lowered maintenance doses with no lack of efficacy.
I'm not saying you (or anyobody) should necessarily pursue maintenance, I don't know enough about your pathology and history to make such a judgement (and I'm not a doctor either). Just want to say that maintenance is no longer something that belongs solely to Dr. Lamm, it's just that he's been studying it the longest. I wouldn't say it's questionable research (sorry Chris!), but has a lot of history behind it.
That said, I would rather my sister not need it (she is the one with bladder cancer) because prolonged treatments can cause side effects, sometimes bad ones that don't go away. That's why other things are also being studied, (low dose)BCG+Interferon, Mitomycin C/intravesical chemotherapy-both short and longer term protocols, new drugs are in trials. But the great response rate of BCG is hard to beat so it will take something very special to replace it as a treatment for non-muscle invasive blc.
Take care,
Wendy