We modified our in‐house TPS so that the motion information from the RTD measurements can be used to recalculate a more accurate estimate of the actual delivered dose (compares to the planned dose using CT without considering any breath‐hold motion). For each position (set of recorded RTDs), the dose was recomputed using our modified in‐house treatment planning system, and the equally weighted average of the multiple resultant doses was computed. As an example, considering a total number of n positions (n sets of RTDs) recorded, the dose was recomputed for each recorded position on the original treatment plan. The final dose was the summation of all the n dose results and then divided by n. The RTDs were sampled at approximately the same rates. For each patient, the clinical patient dose statistics (delivered dose statistics) were compared to those from the treatment plan (that assumes no breath‐hold motion). Heart and lungs doses were considered for the treatment plan. We did not have clearly defined constrains for these two organs at risk (OAR). Instead, our clinicians tried to minimize the heart and lung dose while balancing the competing target coverage. Mean heart dose and lungs V20 were studied. For patients whom the IMN were being targeted, the percentage of the IMN receiving 40 Gy was considered, as this is the dose level that our clinicians usually aim to electively irradiate these nodes. More specifically, IMN 40 Gy percentage coverage and IMN mean dose were considered. Scattered plots were used to compare the planned and delivered doses. The averaged mean, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum over all patients were reported.