I guess it depends more what you mean by ‘tank destroyer concept’. The US TD concept was a very specific doctrine of search and destroy, everyone else used them as self propelled anti-tank guns (or misused them as ersatz assault guns or tanks). The technology was to a large extent irrelevant, although a Jagdpanther was marginally more survivable than a Jagdpanzer 1:) The US TD doctrine is more applicable to modern attack helicopters (Bryan Peretts thesis in ‘A Brief History of Blitzkreig, one of his better books).
Dedicated AT weapons will _always_ be more effective tank killers than tanks, despite what the tank generals and arms manufacturers say. Operations Research conducted in the 1980s demonstrated that dedicated AT weapons (even those identical to tank mounts) are at least twice as effective as tank mounted weapons in destroying enemy armour. Yet NATO was sold the myth that the most effective AT weapon was another tank, even when Hans von Luck was conducting tours of the Goodwood battlefeld for NATO officers where his anti-tank guns tore gigantic holes in massed allied armour formations. See Rowlands and Speight ‘The Stress of Battle’, some of their research was republished in ‘Brains and Bullets’ as the original can be hard to find. Similarly, look at the combat effectiveness modifiers applied to AT weapons in Dupuy’s ‘Numbers, Predictions and War’, they are twice as effective against armour.
So yes, TD doctrine still holds strong, even if half a dozen blokes with MILAN aren’t as sexy as a new Chieftan.
"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke