Background: Low immunization rates among adults are associated with worse outcomes, particularly among immunocompromised individuals, such as those diagnosed with a cancer. To better understand vaccination communication and decision-making experiences among adult cancer patients treated at a safety-net system, we conducted structured interviews to: (1) explore patients’ perceptions of their oncology providers’ role in adult immunization, and (2) understand the potential factors that underlie patients’ hesitancy to receive vaccines. Methods: Parkland Health is the safety-net system for Dallas County, providing care for a primarily minority and un-/under-insured population. Cancer patients who had previously deferred or declined immunization participated in either in-person or telephone interviews in their preferred language (English/Spanish), using a structured 8-question interview guide. Questions centered on oncology providers’ role, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine decision-making. Interviews averaged 12 minutes and were recorded for transcription. Aggregated interview responses were coded by question and interpreted through content analysis which noted frequency (i.e., times concept stated) and extensiveness (i.e., repetition across questions). Results: Thirteen patients were interviewed – 7 in English, 6 in Spanish. Patient’s perceived their oncology providers as highly important to their vaccination decision-making as they were: (1) more likely to get a vaccine if it is recommended by their provider (P2: Well, if the doctor hadn’t told me I wouldn’t have gotten vaccinated; P3: If they didn’t recommend it, I would not get it; P12: If they recommend it, it's worth looking into or thinking about), and (2) identified their oncology provider as a preferred means for learning about vaccines (P8: Asking the doctor or the doctor communicating with us patients about a vaccine... in my personal opinion, I would say, go ahead and vaccinate me). Patient-identified reasons for hesitancy included concerns about side effects (P2: “several people told me that is why we got cancer”), fear of needles, previous negative experiences, and preference for alternative medicine approaches. Conclusions: Results from this preliminary study suggest that while patients may not initiate vaccination conversations with their oncology providers, they do identify their providers as influential in their decision-making. Oncology providers may not consider immunization as their primary responsibility but can be a primary source for effective vaccine communication in conjunction with the oncology care team. Findings from our patient interviews informed interventions in a quality improvement project to increase immunization uptake among cancer patients at our safety-net system.