https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2018/08/27/italy-bridg...
Basically the concrete around the steel cables is nothing but a "protection box".
From the little I know about explosions, the idea is that there is a sudden expansion from the inside to the outside. For having any damage to parts near the "core" there must be sufficient "containment", that the concrete simply cannot represent IMHO.
The actual steel used for cables is high tensile and - believe me - extremely resistant besides rather hard while concrete (particularly concrete so ammalorated to let the water creep in) has very little tensile strength.
So, IF actually there was a steam explosion, the result/effect would have been much more likely (besides "nothing") unscathed cables and ruined concrete around them (with no structural failure of the bridge)
As an alternative to explosives it is common to use expanding cement grout in actual concrete demolition, which essentially is explosive on slow motion. When dealing with reinforced concrete you normally need to cut the rebars with a torch (or other means) after the concrete has cracked.
Check (just an example this kind of cement originated in Japan in the '70's and now there are more similar products than stars in the sky):
As the mentioned corrosion is indicative of water present, and since the cable stays are a single point of failure (also explained in the article), I personally find this a quite likely chain of events.