Purpose: Due to the complexity of 4D target tracking radiotherapy, the accuracy of this treatment strategy should be experimentally validated against established standard 3D technique. This work compared the accuracy of 3D and 4D dose calculations in respiration tracking stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Methods: Using the 4D planning module of the CyberKnife treatment planning system, treatment plans for a moving target and a static off-target cord structure were created on different four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) datasets of a thorax phantom moving in different ranges. The 4D planning system used B-splines deformable image registrations (DIR) to accumulate dose distributions calculated on different breathing geometries, each corresponding to a static 3D-CT image of the 4D-CT dataset, onto a reference image to compose a 4D dose distribution. For each motion, 4D optimization was performed to generate a 4D treatment plan of the moving target. For comparison with standard 3D planning, each 4D plan was copied to the reference end-exhale images and a standard 3D dose calculation was followed. Treatment plans of the off-target structure were first obtained by standard 3D optimization on the end-exhale images. Subsequently, they were applied to recalculate the 4D dose distributions using DIRs. All dose distributions that were initiallymore » obtained using the ray-tracing algorithm with equivalent path-length heterogeneity correction (3D{sub EPL} and 4D{sub EPL}) were recalculated by a Monte Carlo algorithm (3D{sub MC} and 4D{sub MC}) to further investigate the effects of dose calculation algorithms. The calculated 3D{sub EPL}, 3D{sub MC}, 4D{sub EPL}, and 4D{sub MC} dose distributions were compared to measurements by Gafchromic EBT2 films in the axial and coronal planes of the moving target object, and the coronal plane for the static off-target object based on the {gamma} metric at 5%/3mm criteria ({gamma}{sub 5%/3mm}). Treatment plans were considered acceptable if the percentage of pixels passing {gamma}{sub 5%/3mm} (P{sub {gamma} =} 90%. Results: The averaged P{sub {gamma}
