Maintenance Rituxan vs as needed treatment

The oncologist wants me to do "maintenance Rituxan" in a couple of months but I am reading literature that would indicate questionable help from doing maintenance treatments and some possible harm.

But it's controversial and I am trying to figure out what to say to the doctor. Do I want to go against his advice? "There isn't a study yet which shows a survival benefit." Re-treatment is just as good upon recurrence. Does it impact negatively upon subsequent therapies? There is some evidence to show it does.

"This tells us that it is fine to manage patients with follicular lymphoma with more or less rituximab, in a "rituximab on-demand," as opposed to a "rituximab automatically" maintenance strategy." (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/756077)

Perhaps it's time for a second opinion!

Here's a good video summarizing the recent research:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFU7bVSZDxA with Dr. Brad Kahl about patients like me with no symptoms. My notes from video:
Re-treatment was the preferred strategy: less toxicity, equal quality of life. 16 doses vs 4 doses with 1/4 the treatment. But results are very close. It just comes down to trade-offs. Patients have different coping styles. Patients can be comfortable with "watch and wait" and others are never comfortable with that strategy. Concern with Rituxan exposure will deplete immunoglobulin levels and make them more prone to infection. With maintenance immunoglobulin levels keep up even with prolonged exposure, up to 7 years. Creating Rituxan resistance with prolonged exposure? No evidence of that. 

I found a prognosticator online and this is what it said, if I put in the correct information.

Prognosis in Follicular Lymphoma Using the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI)

This patient is considered intermediate risk according to the FLIPI. Overall survival at 10 years is estimated to be 50%.

About this calculator

The Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) is the result of a large international cooperative effort in which clinical data was collected from 4167 patients with FL diagnosed between 1985 and 1992. From this database, a prognostic index with five adverse factors was derived and validated. The index is able to separate 3 risk groups of approximately eqaul size with clear differentiation of long-term prognosis.
Prognosis depends on the sum of 5 factors: number of Nodal areas, LDH, Age, Stage, and Hemoglobin level. Hence, the mnemonic NoLASH may be useful to remember the factors.
If the score is 0 to 1, the patient is considered "low risk" according to the FLIPI. Overall survival at 10 years is estimated to be 70%. If the score is 2, the patient is considered "intermediate risk" according to the FLIPI. Overall survival at 10 years is estimated to be 50%. If the score is ≥ 3, the patient is considered "high risk" according to the FLIPI. Overall survival at 10 years is estimated to be 35%.