That´s totally correct - I paper on this was currently accepted (not yet on Pubmed):

Eiber M, Herrmann K, Calais J, Hadaschik B, Giesel FL, Hartenbach M, Hope T, Reiter R, Maurer T, Weber WA, Fendler WP. PROstate cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE): proposed miTNM classification for the interpretation of PSMA-ligand PET/CT. J Nucl Med, in press

Tobias, I will keep a watchful eye out re the above paper in press. But my question dealt with clarifying the nomenclature & its meaning to the clinicians who are trying to make sense of all of this.  No question that a standardization of PET/CT and PET/MRI involving various PSMA imaging and therapeutic agents is needed. But for me and many other oncologists specially focused on prostate cancer, it would be important to have clarity on issues such as

Terms used re structure of a therapeutic PSMA-based radionuclide. 

(e.g., a standard naming convention (so to speak) indicating radionuclide-chelator-pharmacore) and any other part of the structure that I have omitted. 

Clarification of what particular chelators, pharmacores, radiometals have the highest therapeutic index. 

Requesting that publications clarify how SUV is determined with various isotopes such as 18F, 68Ga, 123I, etc. 

head-to-head studies on prostate cancer imaging to put to rest imaging that is insensitive such as CT, Tc99 bone scanning, while comparing newer imaging PET/CT and PET/MRI in the same patient population so that clinicians use what is best for the patient.  And do this with a special focus on metastatic sites such as bone, node as well as prostate gland.  

This would be a huge contribution & add understanding to what is "clearly" muddied waters, in my opinion. A open clinical trial at UCLA has many of the names found for 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT. 

Stephen