Tell your advisor. Their job is to figure out the best possible way for you to learn.
Everyone will say TG reports. I've found if I know something about a topic, a TG report is a great way to learn more. If I didn’t know much, they weren’t helpful.
If you learn by reading I suggest Practical Radiation Oncology Physics by Dieterich et al
For an intro (or early board prep) level overview, my favorite book is:
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Technology-Radiation-Therapy/dp/1930524447
It is readable, much more than Johns and Cunningham or Khan.
If you want to go deep into NMR (way deeper than you would need for regular clinical proton mri), then Spin Dynamics by Levitt is your book.
https://www.amazon.com/Spin-Dynamics-Nuclear-Magnetic-Resonance/dp/0470511176
Try Gnuplot http://www.gnuplot.info/ it’s quite easy to use and simple stuff f with it, but it’s really powerful, with curve fitting with any formula you want. Much more easy to start than Octave/Matlpot or Python.
The artifacts I was referring to when stating that MVCT offered a reduction are more along the lines of these sorts of motion-associated CBCT artifacts:
(a rather extreme example, I admit, but the first to show up in my Google search)
You don't see that so much on the Tomo MVCT. The longitudinal blurring I mentioned only to say that you don't completely eliminate all motion artifacts, as those still exist.
A text coming to mind with substantially, specifically addressing CyberKnife is Giller et al. "Radiosurgical Planning: Gamma tricks and Cyber picks" However, this was the text I used for cranial SRS rotation, so I can't speak to its content (or potential lack thereof) on tumor tracking.
https://www.amazon.com/Radiosurgical-Planning-Gamma-Tricks-Cyber/dp/0470175567
Amazon has a "look inside" feature by clicking on the picture of the book and it will show what the first couple of pages look like. Link to US page
This book might be worth looking at:http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Technology-Radiation-Therapy/dp/1930524447/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=
It was designed for therapists, not physicists, so it is not that technical, but it is actually readable and good for reviewing and figuring out what areas to review more.
Also, if you read Khan and the TG reports, that's almost all of the information you need. Wepassed is helpful for seeing what types (and how) questions are asked.
Good Luck.