The therapeutic efficacy of nanomedicines is highly dependent on their access to target sites in the body, and this in turn is markedly affected by their size, shape and transport properties in tissue. Although there have been many studies in this area, the ability to design nanomaterials with optimal physicochemical properties for in vivo efficacy remains a significant challenge. In particular, it is often difficult to quantify the detailed effects of cancer drug delivery systems in vivo as tumour volume reduction, a commonly reported marker of efficacy, does not always correlate with cytotoxicity in tumour tissue. Here, we studied the behaviour in vivo of two specific poly(2-hydroxypropyl methacrylamide) (pHPMA) pro-drugs, with hyperbranched and chain-extended branched architectures, redox-responsive backbone components, and pH-sensitive linkers to the anti-cancer drug doxorubicin. Evaluation of the biodistribution of these polymers following systemic injection indicated differences in the circulation time and organ distribution of the two polymers, despite their very similar hydrodynamic radii (∼10 and 15 nm) and architectures. In addition, both polymers showed improved tumour accumulation in orthotopic triple-negative breast cancers in mice, and decreased accumulation in healthy tissue, as compared to free doxorubicin, even though neither polymer-doxorubicin pro-drug decreased overall tumour volume as much as the free drug under the dosing regimens selected. However, the results of histopathological examinations by haematoxylin and eosin, and TUNEL staining indicated a higher population of apoptotic cells in the tumours for both polymer pro-drug treatments, and in turn a lower population of apoptotic cells in the heart, liver and spleen, as compared to free doxorubicin treatment. These data suggest that the penetration of these polymer pro-drugs was enhanced in tumour tissue relative to free doxorubicin, and that the combination of size, architecture, bioresponsive backbone and drug linker degradation yielded greater efficacy for the polymers as measured by biomarkers than that of tumour volume. We suggest therefore that the effects of nanomedicines may be different at various length scales relative to small molecule free drugs, and that penetration into tumour tissue for some nanomedicines may not be as problematic as prior reports have suggested. Furthermore, the data indicate that dual-responsive crosslinked polymer-prodrugs in this study may be effective nanomedicines for breast cancer chemotherapy, and that endpoints beyond tumour volume reduction can be valuable in selecting candidates for pre-clinical trials.